Eh, Favre's offense was heavily reliable on 4 big contributers in 2009 in terms of passing: Shiancoe, Rice, Taylor, and Harvin. Of that group...
Shiancoe was gimpy all year with a hamstring. Hurt redzone production. Rice was pretty much gone all season. By the time he came back he never really got back to where he was. Harvin was in and out seemingly on a weekly basis due to migraines. Taylor was no longer on the roster.
Of that group, only Shiancoe was the one most active, and this is why many noted Favre seemed to be "forcing" it to him. He was, for most intesive purposes, they only reliable target left on the team for most the season, with Harvin being hurt and having migraines as well as not being allowed to play slot anymore.
For the packers they lost Grant (little effect on the passing game as he was subbed out on third downs) and Finely - which is as big of a blow as losing Rice for the vikings.
However, we still had Jennings, Driver, Jones, and Nelson. The vikings meanwhile lost
Rice: 83 receptions - 16 games
Taylor: 44 receptions - played all 16 games
In and out harvin: 60 receptions - 15 of 16 games played
Gimpy TE SHiancoe: 56 receptions - 16 games
Berrian: 55 receptions - 16 games
That was 2009 stats. For 2010...
Rice: 17 receptions - 6 games
Taylor - no longer on the roster, replacement: Gerhert - 21 receptions - 15 games
Harvin: 71 receptions - 14 games
Shiancoe: 47 receptions - 16 games
Berrian: 28 receptions - 14 games
Only one player of their top 5 WR options played every game in 2010.
Comparitvely, the packers had their TE out for the season (again, comparable to Rice who never truly returned to form) and, of the 4 remaining (5 if you count nelson since we had Jackson at RB, plus the 4 WR's) only one missed game between the rest - by driver.
So, before you go calling the kettle black that "OMG, THE PACKERS SURVIVED THE LOSS OF FINELY AND GRANT, SO OMG RODGERS!" you have to realize that Rodgers had 90% of his passing weapons available to him in every single game this season, where as Favre did not. In addition, we all knew that outside of maybe Harvin and Rice, our receiving options were already superior to that of what Minnesota had. So we had the better core of WR's to overcome a loss like Finley, and outside of one game by driver the rest of the top 5 stayed healthy all year. Not counting rice, they had 4 lost games between their other top 5 and you can hardly count Gerhert as even a "solid" replacement for taylor.
So if you want to compare losses: Packers lost grant and finely. Vikings lost Rice and Taylor (to FA). Packers did not lose a WR but once all year for one game. Packers did not lose their 3rd down back. So, packers lost one big passing weapon. Vikings lost two (still a mistake they let taylor get away) and had 4 games missed between the remaining.
Overall, the vikings had a worse situation injury wise for the passing game thant he packers. Most of our losses were on defense, where on offense the passing game was left alone pretty well outside of Finely. We had a nice year for WR health.
Now, that doesn't mean favre didn't play worse - he did. That doesn't mean the OL was almost as good as 2009 because there were almost equal sacks - anyone who WATCHED a vikings game saw favre getting hammered on almost eveyr throw - it was like the saints game but EVERY GAME in 2010. Favre may have avoided sacks with quick releases and/or throwing picks, but the guy just got hammered all year. It was the hits that weren't sacks that hur thte most, and those happened a lot more in 2010 than 2009. 2009 they held up fairly well until the saints. 2010 they were bad from the start.
So does some of the bad play fall of favre? Yes. He is the leader and must perform. But at his age he needs to the team around him to stay relatively healthy like in 2009, and that didn't happened, combined with poor OL play and AP getting stuffed at the goalline due to it as well. Bottom line - the players around Favre either got hurt or performed poorly in comparison to 2009, and conversly Favre also performed poorly with little support behind him.
So, it was bad all around for the vikings, and it wasn't JUST that favre;s play got worse. When people hit walls at the end it's not usually THAT dramatic without other factors playing in. If he had rice and taylor off the bat, they likely beat the saints instead of losing close, and who knows what goes from there. Favre had a bad season, but it wasn't just his fault he didn;t have the weapons he did in 2009.