Neither option is ideal. But desperate times breed desperate decisions, and even at this juncture, NFL teams without a talented, proven quarterback they trust are indeed desperate. So much so that their best options for the upcoming season may be either a QB who's way over the hill or one who's waaaay controversial.

The Minnesota Vikings have apparently already decided they're going with Option A, 39-year-old Brett Favre, if the gunslinging icon can fix the pain choking the tendons in his throwing arm. Conflicting stories this week had him meeting with noted sports/knife Dr. James Andrews Tuesday and deciding whether to opt for surgery or a non-invasive option. If either procedure sacks the pain, Favre is expected to don purple for his 19th season.

But is he the best option for the Vikings, or any other team looking for a talented quarterback. Or is there a better call to make for the Denver Broncos, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Browns, St. Louis Rams, Kansas City Chiefs and other teams with less-than-stirring QB options on their roster?

Let's just briefly put aside the "issues" with Michael Vick. Depending on myriad factors, not the least of which would be how gracious and forgiving Roger Goodell is feeling these days, Vick, a three-time Pro Bowler, could be available for next season. Not likely all of next season but for much of it.

He'll be 29 years old. He'll be younger than Chad Pennington, Kurt Warner (okay, everbody's younger than Kurt Warner), Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Kerry Collins and even slightly younger than Tony Romo – all guys considering to be still playing at our near their peak. And he's just a few months older than Eli Manning.

He hasn't played since the 2006 season, of course. And when he did, Vick didn't exactly stir confidence with his play. His talent was unquestioned, but decision-making often unnerving. He was the game's most exciting QB, one capable of breaking a game with his legs or arm (more likely in that order; only Randall Cunningham and Steve Young have more rushing yards among quarterbacks). But he was also the most aggravating, at least to Falcons' fans. He was all promise with little payoff, going 2-2 in playoff games.

That said, if you're looking at Chris Simms, Kyle Orton and Tom Brandstater on the QB depth chart, as the Broncos are doing; or Marc Bulger, Kyle Boller and Keith Null (really, it's Null), as the Rams are, Option B starts to look pretty good.

Based on what we saw in the second half of last season with the Jets, Favre is done. Whether eliminating the pain in his arm changes that, I'm pessimistic.

Based on what we last saw of Vick, my bet is that, in time, he'll be close to the same game-changer he was, for better or not.

Of course, the "issues" are real with Vick.

You can assess two years away from the game two ways: 1) He's rusty and his skills have no doubt deteriorated; or 2) his body is healthy because he hasn't been pummelled by any angry, 260-pound defensive ends in two years.

That's easy, though, compared with the baggage Vick will carry onto any NFL field, no matter how much remorse he shows, how much he apologizes, how much he pays for his transgressions.

But just as some fans will never forgive him, at least as many will see that he has paid his debt and deserves to move on with his life.

And if he can help some team to the playoffs, at least one team's fans will cheer like they're doing in the Bronx when A-Rod smashes another game-winner.

If Vick gets Goodell's blessing, some owner will choose Option B.

If you're an NFL GM and the option is Favre or Vick, which call do you make?

AP photos