Results 37 to 42 of 42
-
Re: Should the "Art" patch stay on the Ravens uniform?
Just putting in my 2 cents, I lost my older brother when I was 10, and though I love him and miss him even 30 years later, I don't have a marker on my life of him. He wouldn't want it, he'd want me to go on with my life and remember him fondly.
That being said, my younger brother who knew him far less being only 4 at the time has his name tattooed on his body.
Point is, everyone is different in how they deal with death and memorializing someone.
As for an NFL team, I think it is important to do a 1 year patch, after that, it should become something else at the stadium. A statue, a sign, but if permanent patches become the norm, then eventually the team becomes more about the past then what it is, a football team in Baltimore.
Steve Bisciotti once said, he doesn't own the team, it belongs to Baltimore, he is merely the current steward. As much as Art did for Baltimore, let us not forget there were business considerations that brought him here. He was a great man for us, not so much in the eyes of Cleveland. I say let the memorial rest in Baltimore and not be a permanent part of the Raven's legacy where we take it on the road with us.
-
Re: Should the "Art" patch stay on the Ravens uniform?
They dedicated the 2011 season to Art, now it's time to move on. He won't be forgotten but the patch goes
World Domination 3 Points at a Time!
-
03-04-2013, 01:26 PM #39
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Where Ravens Fans Roam Free
- Posts
- 9,277
- Blog Entries
- 1
Re: Should the "Art" patch stay on the Ravens uniform?
-
03-04-2013, 02:00 PM #40
-
03-04-2013, 04:08 PM #41
-
03-04-2013, 05:46 PM #42
Bookmarks