Packers 5 options and odds of each

[motife]

If Favre returns, Packers have five options
By Bill Huber
packwriter2002@yahoo.com
Posted Jul 5, 2008

From letting Favre and Rodgers compete to releasing Favre, none of the options are perfect. Packer Report’s Bill Huber puts the odds on each of the possibilities.

Will he or won’t he?
That’s the question on the minds of Packers fans — again — concerning the playing future of legendary quarterback Brett Favre.

Assuming Favre feels he needs to scratch football’s most famous “itch,” the Packers are left with several options. None of them are perfect.


Bring back Favre, and let him compete for the starting job with Aaron Rodgers: At first blush, this almost sounds logical. But not knowing who your quarterback is one thing for lousy teams like the Chicago Bears. These Packers, regardless of the quarterback, have lofty aspirations. Anything that will slow this team’s progression to the regular-season opener must be avoided.

Just imagine if Rodgers beat out Favre for the starting job. Much has been said about the possibility of Ted Thompson being known forever as the general manager who trades/releases the legendary Favre. How would you like to be Mike McCarthy, known forever as the coach who benched the legend?

Now, imagine being Favre. First, you think the Packers don’t want you. Now, they’re making you, perhaps the finest quarterback in the history of the universe, beat out some kid to keep your job? Puh-lease.

Percent chance of this happening: 1 percent.


Bring back Favre, and he and Rodgers reprise their roles from the last few years: At first blush, this one almost sounds logical, too. And it might work, if Favre is clicking from Day 1 and the Packers race out of the starting gates demolishing teams like the 1996 club did en route to the Super Bowl. That would give Rodgers’ grousing, either in public or to his teammates, little credibility.

But you can’t assume the Packers are going to pick up where they left off last season. Not with the schedule being more difficult and Favre being another year older — and without an offseason of preparation.

As would be the case under the previous option, having Favre and Rodgers on the same roster is a recipe for ruining the superb chemistry that has been a hallmark of McCarthy’s teams the last two years. For many fans, Favre is a football god. That’s not necessarily the case in the locker room, though, where many of his teammates are so much younger and aren’t as emotionally linked to Favre. And what message does it send when it’s important for the players to attend McCarthy’s offseason program, except if you’re No. 4?

Then there’s the not-so-small matter of Rodgers’ contract expiring after the 2009 season. If Favre comes back just for 2008, the Packers will have just the 2009 season to base their decision whether to re-sign Rodgers. And that’s assuming Rodgers would even want to come back to Green Bay after all of this. And if Favre gives a two-year commitment, then Rodgers would become the biggest waste of a first-round draft pick in NFL history.

Percent chance of this happening: 4 percent.


Bring back Favre and trade Rodgers: This is plausible for three reasons.

First, while Thompson comes across as someone who doesn’t particularly care how popular he is among the fans, he is human. He must know the ridicule — and worse — he’d face if he decides to dump Favre.

Second, while every part of Thompson’s building program in Green Bay has had the long-term future in mind, maybe he thinks the 2008 Packers have a better chance to win the Super Bowl with Favre, so he puts his eggs in No. 4’s basket.

Third, maybe Thompson has seen enough of Brian Brohm to think the Packers would be in at least as good of hands with Brohm as with Rodgers in 2009 or 2010 and beyond.

Percent chance of this happening: 15 percent.


Trade Favre: Maybe Thompson and McCarthy get together next week and reach the conclusion that winning in 2009, 2010 and beyond is more important than whatever improved odds Favre would give the team in 2008.

Considering that and the possibility of disrupted locker-room harmony with Favre and Rodgers on the roster, the Packers’ brain trust decides to explore the trade value of a 38-year-old quarterback with three years and $39 million remaining on his contract.

The guess: not much. Favre almost certainly can sling it with the best of ‘em, but at this late stage in the offseason, how much of a new offense can he feel comfortable running in Week 1? And by the time he gets comfy, will the 2008 season be a lost cause? And, if he gave his new team a two-year commitment, will he still be an elite player by midseason 2009, when he will have turned 40?

Percent chance of this happening: 25 percent.


Release Favre: It won’t be pretty, but shortly after 5 p.m., when the lights are turned out at Lambeau Field, a fax will be sent to the media. It will probably be two paragraphs, with the first saying the Packers have released Favre and the second being a quote from Thompson thanking Favre for all he’s done for the franchise.

And with those 60 or so words, an era will be over. The sun, however, will rise the next morning.

Percent chance of this happening: 55 percent.

Bill Huber writes for Packer Report. E-mail him at packwriter2002@yahoo.com

[Harlan Huckleby]

i agree w/ this guys percentages up until the last two. I think a trade or release are about equally likely.

Football is about selling tickets and merchandise. Favre is a very valuable boost to any franchise.

[texaspackerbacker]

No offense to Motife who posted the article, and who provides us with a lot of wonderful material, but the guy writing the article is a God damned IDIOT--and the worst kind of idiot, the kind who is writing crap harmful to the Packers.

First and foremost, AGAIN, we have a thread based with NO EVIDENCE on the idea that Favre wants to come back.

Secondly, if the idiot's premise does turn out to be true, there's no way in hell that the Packers would simply cut Favre.

The sixth option which was left out is to simply let him come back as a $10 million backup QB--which IMO, would be the best way to go. With the large cap excess the Packers have, they could do that. This would simply be a more extreme version of the article's first option--let 'em compete.

Trading Favre may seem like a horrendous option, but if we made a killing--a first round pick or no less than a second, I could live with that, and it seems like the kind of thing Thompson would do. It is anything but a sure thing that Favre would have a great year, regardless of who he played for. If we can believe any of this "itch" crap at all, buried in the stories is the idea that Favre would like to make about 80% of the effort toward preparation that he made last year. That could spell a season worse than '06.

Bottom line is this is all bullshit generated by media assholes, and Favre is going to do the best thing for everybody--nothing at all.

[PackerPro42]

I couldn't see the Packers releasing Favre. I believe that if he comes back they'll explore their options, but if they feel all the offers for Favre are sub-par they'll keep him on the team and go for a Super Bowl run. For me, it just doesn't make sense to release the face of your franchise just because you want to move on. And on top of that there would be some pretty pissed off Packer fans. I think that if they were to get some value for Favre, whether it be draft picks or players, it would ease the whole situation for Pack fans.

[sheepshead]

I dont agree with this guys assessment what-so-ever. In fact you could almost reverse the percentages as far as I'm concerned. Also, while you are correct Tex this is no evidence this has any teeth at all, you have to look at it as where's there's smoke there's fire.

[Scott Campbell]

So they have it at 80% that Favre would either be traded or released. I agree. I don't think Bus Cook would be involved at this point unless one of those two scenarios was a foregone conclusion.

So am I a GOD-DAMNED IDIOT? Perhaps.

:lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

I dont agree with this guys assessment what-so-ever. In fact you could almost reverse the percentages as far as I'm concerned. Also, while you are correct Tex this is no evidence this has any teeth at all, you have to look at it as where's there's smoke there's fire.

Unless you can see somebody standing there with a spent smoke bomb ......

Scott, who says Bus Cook is "involved"? Cook didn't say it; Favre didn't say it: Thompson and McCarthy didn't say it. He has merely been asked stupid questions by the media bastards--and NOT given any positive response.

[swede]

i agree w/ this guys percentages up until the last two. I think a trade or release are about equally likely.

Football is about selling tickets and merchandise. Favre is a very valuable boost to any franchise.

Agree, but I think a trade is more likely than a release.

[twoseven]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

[The Leaper]

A trade is far more likely than a release. If the Packers release Favre outright, he will immediately be signed by Minnesota (when was the last time they did not sign one of our castoffs???) and Ted Thompson's future with the Green Bay Packers could get very ugly very quickly.

If you retain the rights to Favre...and he is pigheaded enough to force your hand...you trade him somewhere that he can do the least harm to your ballclub going forward.

There are only 3 possible outcomes if Favre comes back IMO:

1. Favre comes back and Rodgers stays on as the backup, but will see more chances to play in a reserve role.

2. Favre comes back and Rodgers is traded.

3. The Packers trade Favre to another team...likely in the AFC.

[Fritz]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.

[Scott Campbell]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.



As absolutely horrific as that sounds, and it is truly blood curdling, I guess it also puts off them addressing their long QB needs for a bit. But you really have to be a glass half full kind of guy to see it that way.

[retailguy]

But you really have to be a glass half full kind of guy to see it that way.

Or.... a "God damned idiot". :lol: :wink:

[Gunakor]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.

Put Favre on the Vikings roster and they are legitimate SB contenders. They've had a pretty good defense for some time now, and all they need on offense is a QB. Enter Favre and they are a lock for the NFC North title, and serious contenders for a SB appearance.

But don't even think about it like that. Think about week 1. The very FIRST game in 16 years that #4 doesn't trot out of the Packers tunnel at Lambeau he trot's out of the VISITORS tunnel at Lambeau. Wearing a purple jersey and a purple helmet with horns on the side. I'd pay Favre 12 million dollars to stay home before I let that happen.

[twoseven]

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.
Hell, do the Vikings even have a second/third rounder next year, or does it belong to KC?

Being one player away only to add the runner up MVP of 08' as that one player seems like a pretty good fit to me, especially if he is still playing against the same Bears/Vikes, Lions, and Packer defenses he knows fairly well 6 times a year.

Big gamble sending him to Minny. We differ on opinion of this team. MN was nearly good enough to make the playoffs last year despite Tavaris Jackson who sucks to a degree that I am incapable of expressing without charts and graphs a laser pointer and some Schlitz. Their defense has been improved quite a bit with JAllen and they have the best ground game in all of football. Toss Brett in there to take even more pressure off this ground game..are opponents going to try that eight in the box crap with Favre under center? We all know how well a Favre led offense does with a strong ground game. I don't think they are so easy to dismiss and I would pencil them in for NFC Champs with my vote.

I'd prefer Brett in CHI before MN by a long shot, as the Bears seem much less dangerous to me, but I see your point. I also agree with Gunny that seeing #4 opposite our team in week one, the game he was supposed to be added to the very short list of retired numbers, would be devastating to a lot of people, regardless of the outcome of the game.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, I say again, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN--Favre isn't going to push to come back, and the Packers aren't going to initiate anything barring an emergency with Rodgers.

However, say for argument sake, we did do a trade and send Favre to the Vikings or Bears. Does it occur to anybody that we might just be sending them a Trojan Horse? There's no guarantee at all that Favre is going to perform at a high level. He has supposedly stated that he would want to get by with about 80% of the preparation effort of last season. Does that mean 80% of the quality of last year? Does it mean performance at the 2006 level? Who knows, but great as Favre has always been, I sure wouldn't bet that he would play very well under those circumstances. I'd almost bet against it.

[sharpe1027]

all they need on offense is a QB.

I'm not sold on Robert Ferguson and company. The Vikings passing woes might start with the QB, but their problems continue with the receivers and go all the way to the coaching staff.

I'll believe the Vikings are good when I see it on Sunday. Until then, they are just another team getting attention because they made a big splash in FA/trades only to be forgotten once they step on the field (see San Fran last year).

Would they be better with Favre? Yes, just not SB contenders IMHO.

[twoseven]

all they need on offense is a QB.

I'm not sold on Robert Ferguson and company. The Vikings passing woes might start with the QB, but their problems continue with the receivers and go all the way to the coaching staff.

I'll believe the Vikings are good when I see it on Sunday. Until then, they are just another team getting attention because they made a big splash in FA/trades only to be forgotten once they step on the field (see San Fran last year).

Would they be better with Favre? Yes, just not SB contenders IMHO.Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

[sharpe1027]

Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

Honestly, I don't know for sure. The Packers, Cowboy and Giants could each stand in their way. Your discounting of the Giants is rather strange considering how the Packer's also kicked the Giant's ass last year during the regular season...

You are forgetting teams like the Panthers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks, Eagles and Tampa Bay. Are anyone of them locks? No, but neither is Minnesota. One thing is relatively certain, there usually is a surpise team or two. I just don't think the Vikings are one of them.

[twoseven]

Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

Honestly, I don't know for sure. The Packers, Cowboy and Giants could each stand in their way. Your discounting of the Giants is rather strange considering how the Packer's also kicked the Giant's ass last year during the regular season...

You are forgetting teams like the Panthers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks, Eagles and Tampa Bay. Are anyone of them locks? No, but neither is Minnesota. One thing is relatively certain, there usually is a surpise team or two. I just don't think the Vikings are one of them.
I don't see how our win over the NYG last year has much to do with what the Vikes would do next year if Favre were at their helm. I mention the Vikes beating them because I feel the Giants have taken a step backwards with some losses in the offseason and the Vikes have upgraded. The Pack next year versus Giants next year? Without Favre, I think we should reserve judgement. To me both teams have undergone some changes that could greatly affect their effectiveness in a negative way.

For me it's simple. The Vikes to me looked strong last year. They exchanged Jared Allen for Kineche Udeze, Berrian for Stonehands Williamson, and the idea of Favre being in place of Jackson to me has them tough to beat. The Cowboys also got better adding Adam Jones and Felix Jones to an already oustanding crew. The Giants, to me, lost some important players on defense, lost an RB to the penile system, and still have unresolved issues with Shockey and I think will not be as solid next year. As for the rest of those mentioned, sure anything can happen, but if you had to lay 1000 bucks down, who are you going with? I say Cowboys then Vikings, and I'll take Vikings if the game was in MN. That's just me.

[swede]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[twoseven]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....certainly better than a RB losing his penile system. :rs:

[sharpe1027]

I don't see how our win over the NYG last year has much to do with what the Vikes would do next year if Favre were at their helm.

You discounted the Giants because the Vikings beat them last year. I was pointing out that a single head-2-head game in the same season doesn't mean much in the same year. Thus, how the Vikings did against the Giants in one game last year is not very relevant much in my book.

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can understand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

[The Leaper]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

[Fritz]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.



As absolutely horrific as that sounds, and it is truly blood curdling, I guess it also puts off them addressing their long QB needs for a bit. But you really have to be a glass half full kind of guy to see it that way.

I'm not suggesting I'd want this to happen. Personally, I'd like to see Favre stay retired - I think it'd be best for everyone. Favre would keep and not tarnish his legacy, the Pack could carry on, and no one has to watch Favre in another uniform.

[Fritz]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....certainly better than a RB losing his penile system. :rs:

One of the problems is that these players' penile systems work too well.

[sharpe1027]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

Agreed. No question that Favre would improve the team, we just have different positions on how much.

[MadScientist]

First, the Packers are not forced to trade/cut Favre due to cap or roster space (Flynn can always be stuffed on the PS). So unlike others who have played the retire-return game, the team has all the options. Because of this I see option 1 as most likely, which would make a comeback at all less likely. Does anyone else see Favre coming back unless he was sure of a starters job?

If the Packers decide they must git rid of Favre, there are a hell of a lot of better options for the Packers than the Bears or Vikings. Philly might be the most logical fit. For irony's sake, they could deal him to Atlanta. If they were really pissed about the whole retirement circus, they could deal him to Miami. That threat would likely keep Brett on his tractor for a long time. Or at least until Rodgers sneezes on day 1 of camp and gets a double hernia and 2 broken ribs.

[Bretsky]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

Agreed. No question that Favre would improve the team, we just have different positions on how much.


IMO right now the Vikings are playoff hopefuls; with Favre I'd expect them to make the playoffs and they would be threats to go deep into the playoffs

I don't see Tavarius Jackson leading them deep into the playoffs, if they do get there (my guess is that they do)