Favre, Favre, Favre, by your logic I have to inquire which team this guy plays for? The Vikings. Basically it was all Favre who is controlling the Vikings destiny for a superbowl correct? I'm sure Montana wouldn't mind having a superstar running back in AP (Even though his production has fallen this season he is still one of the best in the NFL), and 4 stellar D-lineman that pretty much controls the defense where their linebackers and secondary barely have to play coverage. And you're talking about the team right? Puh-lease.
You're somewhat correct in that this year's Vikings' squad is the perfect example (at least as I type this) of a really good TEAM. They have good special teams, a great kicker, great QB, good D-line (on artificial turf), decent linebackers and corners. The safeties suck, but they're not exploitable if the D-line is amassing consistent pressure on the opposing QB.
So, Favre really is a perfect fit for this team because he can carry the team during periods where it is not functioning well, and he can also relax a bit when it is. Sydney Rice is the prime example of why Favre wanted Moss in Green Bay - he needs a shoulder to lean on when the going gets tough.
Did anybody watch that game yesterday? If so, tell me who wins that game if Sydney Rice is not there for Favre, or at the very least, tell me how much more difficult Brett's life would have been yesterday without Rice. And, likewise, tell me who wins that game if Favre isn't the QB and takes the calculated risk of deep loft balls to Rice???
Again, to compare Montana to Favre is foolish - Favre is a much better player overall in nearly every facet - numbers, longevity, toughness, durability, excitement level, getting above average production outta average talent, drive, ......endless list, really. But, this is not slighting Montana as much as it is making honest assessments. The haters only argument is Super Bowl wins, which, ironically, is the result of TEAM PLAY. Why does this escape so many of you?