I’ve collected a handful of videos of YouTubers responding to the Brett Favre to the Vikings story at my Videolicious.tv daily video blog.
ESPN has camped out at Winter Park, so Brett Favre to the Minnesota Vikings appears to be the story of the NFL offseason.
ESPN’s John Clayton addresses some of the issues were Favre to wear purple this season, Gene Wojciechowski is all for Farve playing in Minnesota, while former Strib beat writer Kevin Seifert points to what the story says about the Vikings’ current quarterback situation:
More than anything, this facet of the story illustrates how far down the plank the Vikings have already walked. We’re in the second week of May, and they are shopping for a new starting quarterback. The simple act of setting up a meeting with Favre sends a mixed message, at best, to the two quarterbacks they had planned to pit in a training camp competition. Simply by virtue of Tuesday’s story, Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels already know they’re on the brink of being pushed aside — at least for one year.
From this vantage point, it seems the Vikings have boxed themselves into a situation that mandates an agreement with Favre. They’re in no position to make demands, including offseason attendance. If Favre walks away, or if the Vikings move on because he won’t accede to their requests, Childress would be left with the unenviable task of rebuilding the trust of his remaining quarterbacks.
Jared Allen pipes in and likes the idea of Favre in the locker room:
NFL.com columnist Vic Carucci discusses what the move would mean to the the Vikings/Packers rivalry, NFL Total Access did a segment on the risk versus the reward of landing Favre, and Steve Mariucci gives his take.
Sports Illustrated‘s Don Banks is sick of it:
It’s beyond tiresome by now. Let’s face it, it’s sad and kind of pathetic that we’re once again being sucked into another Brett Favre watch. What are we up to now, four, five summers in a row with the same basic storyline: Will he play or won’t he? The indecision of the man has become as legendary as his football feats, and infinitely less entertaining.
Closer to home, Strib beat writers Judd Zulgad and Chip Scoggins quote a very excited Bernard Berrian:
“I try not to get too caught up in it because I don’t want to get too overexcited, thinking that he’s coming and then all of a sudden he doesn’t,†Berrian said. “He would be a great addition to the team. He’s a great player. He’s done so much for the NFL by himself. He definitely would bring leadership to the team.
“He’s been in the league for 17, 18 years and to have a player of his caliber come in, it speaks volumes for what he can do for this team.â€
PiPressers Rick Alonzo and Sean Jensen get Rich Gannon and Pete Bercich‘s take:
“From an X’s and O’s standpoint, it would be perfect,” said Bercich, an analyst for KFAN-AM and a former Vikings assistant coach. “They’ve talked about how, in New York, they used him a lot. They might have overused him, maybe. I guarantee you Childress is either going to show him the film or talk to him about how with (Peterson) standing behind him, he’s going to get a lot of one-on-one coverage. He’s one of the best play-action passers there ever was.”
“It’s the same verbiage, same terminology,” Gannon said of the Vikings’ offense and the Packers’ system. “The comfort level is so important for a quarterback like that. What they did last year, in New York, they bastardized the system. They made all kinds of changes and tweaks. Everyone had to learn different stuff, because of Brett. He’d audible, and he’d be referring to the old terminology.
“Stepping into this system, with the great running game, and the solid defense… just manage the game, and take care of the football, there’s no reason he can’t win 11 or 12 games.”
Darren Sharper thinks it’s a good idea, too but Nick Barnett says the move would make Favre a traitor.
WCCO TV’s Esme Murphy covers the chatter, online and off, about the Favre story while Jason DeRusha reports on the financial impact Favre’s purpleness would mean to the team.