While signing Brett Favre would be a one-year fix for the Vikings, signing Brett Favre would not make 2009 "Super Bowl or bust." The Vikings have a nucleus of talented young players who should be playing at a high level for several years, and a well-run organization can add talent to build around such a nucleus. In today's NFL, no season should be Super Bowl or bust for any team.
However, the Vikings aren't going to be a serious Super Bowl contender until they resolve their issues at the quarterback position. Resolving it for one season, then going into 2010 with the position again a dilemma, does not help the Vikings. That means if the Vikings do sign Favre, they're making 2009 a very critical season. To set back finding a long-term quarterback, the Vikings are banking that a 40 year old quarterback with a penchant for throwing crazy interceptions, a recent history of wearing down in the second half of a season, and a history of unreliable playoff performances can transform a playoff team into a Super Bowl contender.
I'm skeptical. Favre might make the '09 Vikings better than Sage Rosenfels would. But how much better? And at what cost?
The cost? Every Viking fans soul!
ReplyDelete