Here's a guy who doesn't think much about signing Favre

I hope readers aren't getting tired of me linking to Mike Lombardi's posts. But I can't help but highlight this piece on the Brett Favre situation.

The Vikings are not a team Lombardi mentions on a regular basis. That's both good and bad. Like most football writers, he tends to focus his attention on the team's whose coaching staffs and management he admires (New England) and the ones that he does not admire (Oakland). The glut of NFL teams in the grey area usually escape his notice and I think he views the Vikings management and coaching staff as slightly below average-to average in talent and performance.

But Lombardi has certainly caught on that Brad Childress and company don't seem to know how to fix the team's problems at quarterback. And he's right to wonder why the Vikings were turned off by how Jay Cutler's character and makeup would affect the team and yet they are seriously entertaining signing Favre – a move that could see them granting special allowances to Favre (such as training this spring at home rather than at Winter Park) that they wouldn't grant any other player. How is that good for team chemistry?

And now that the Vikings draft is over and we know what the Bears gave up to get Cutler (basically Kyle Orton, 2009's 1st and 3rd round picks and 2010's first round pick), are the Vikings better off with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels or an almost 40-year-old Brett Favre, plus Percy Harvin, Asher Allen and their 2010 first round pick? Or would they be better off with Jay Cutler and no Harvin, no Allen, no 2010 first rounder and maybe no Rosenfels or some other Viking regular like, say, Chad Greenway?

I wish Cutler was wearing purple. And I wish Childress wasn't having private sitdowns with Brett Favre at secret locations in an effort to improve the Vikes quarterback position.