ESPN's Kevin Seifert examines that question in this post and determines, that, yes, the move will be a success if Favre even leads the Vikings to the NFC Championship game.
Some Vikings fans might disagree. After all, there surely is some debate that Favre's great play – and the Vikings great season – hurts the team in the long run because Favre's a short-term answer to a question that requires a long-term answer.
For example, if Tarvaris Jackson is the starting quarterback in 2009, with the way the defence has played, maybe the Vikings finish 7-9 or 8-8, which would be disappointing. But that kind of record would give the Vikings a decent shot at drafting a Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy – two potential franchise quarterbacks expected to be picked early in the first round of this April's college draft.
But with a 12-4 record, they won't have a shot at any of those guys now and so some might think only a Super Bowl victory makes acquiring Favre worthwhile.
It's an interesting way to look at it. Personally, I'm more than okay with how the Favre acquisition has turned out, long-term ramifications be damned.
* Meanwhile, Judd Zulgad writes about a topic that never goes away – the possibility of the Vikings leaving Minnesota for Los Angeles.
Maybe the Los Angeles group isn't targeting the Vikings to move there. But that doesn't mean Zygi Wilf won't target Los Angeles as the expiry date on the Metrodome lease in 2011 gets closer.
That seems especially likely if you read about the Vikings financial situation in this post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As much fun as this season has been, I feel as though the Favre thing was certainly the right move. I'll be torn if the Vikings lay an egg in the first playoff game, however.
You've probably seen it before reading this comment, but FO's Walkthrough has some excellent commentary on the Cowboy's draw plays that could very well be of grave concern to Minnesota in a week and a half. The play is designed to 'freeze' a weak area of the Vikings' defense, but a good tackling CB and stout run-stuff d-line (which were both indisputable in recent years but faltering lately) could neutralize the threat. It's a good read.
Peter:
I skimmed it today, but didn't have a chance to read it thoroughly. But I will. It looks very interesting.
Post a Comment