I had progressive takes after hearing about and reading Jay Glazer's story.
I thought we were over all of this, and I had talked myself into Sage Rosenfels and was getting excited for an unconflicted season rooting for the Vikings. And I pictured a 40 year old quarterback out there throwing 20+ interceptions for the Vikes, and I realized the word I've been looking for all along: sloppy. When I picture Favre on the Vikes, I see him playing like he did with the Jets, and it looks sloppy. That's the mental image I have.
It's one thing to sign a committed Brett Favre who is ready to work hard with the team to prepare for the season. It's quite another to sign a conflicted, underprepared Brett Favre that skipped out on training camp work where he could develop vital timing with his offensive teammates.
Favre is an old quarterback with a recent tendency to wear down physically (and perhaps mentally) toward the end of the season. So if you want Favre to be your team's quarterback, why do you want to wear him out with extra work in August? Perhaps a lighter start to the season means Favre can be stronger late in the season (and the Vikes' early games are very winnable, even if Favre is still working his way into a groove). It doesn't mean I want Favre to join the Vikes; it's just that I see some benefit to giving him training camp off.
I'm starting to think of Favre like Napoleon. He got ousted, but did make a surprise return, only to be quickly ousted again. And weren't there always rumors after that that he'd be returning, and everybody had this sort of belief that he'd return, and nobody could believe it was unrealistic even after it was unrealistic? It's possible the answer to that question is "No" (my main interest in European history is on the Reformation; I'm not sure I've ever quite grasped what the deal is with Napoleon). But that's metaphor I'm using. The ghost of Napoleon lingers, and nobody can quite accept that he's not coming back.