Colts to announce new stadium deal

[Bill Swerski]

Picture this.....

 

Daddy, who is that statue?

 

Well Sparky, that is Johnny Unitas, the greatest QB to ever play the game.  He was a Colt.

 

Wow Daddy, tell me about when you saw him play.

 

Well, I was in my lazy boy watching NFL Films on ESPN Classic.  Wow, what a sight.

 

625348[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So, I'm not allowed to cherish the storied history of my Chicago Bears simply because I wasn't alive when Butkus, Sayers, and Red Grange played?

 

By the way, it is totally possible to have a new history while honoring and remembing the old.

 

625363[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yet, the Colts aren't allowed to remember their old history simply because they moved? Remember, the Colts PAID guys like Unitas to win championships for the city of Baltimore. What did Baltimore give the players, outside of that craphole Memorial Stadium?

 

Baltimore Colt fans are always going to hate the Indy Colts.  Cleveland Browns fans are always going to hate the Baltimore Ravens.  That's just the way it is.

 

"Waah! Waah! The Colts left town 20 years ago and I still can't get over it! And they embarrassed my city again on Sunday night! Waaaahhh!" :bawling:

[Big Red]

Swerski, do you even read the post?

 

How many Indy Colt fans where Colt fans before they got the team?

 

Indy can honor any pre '84 guys they want. Doesn't make it part of Indy football if they do.

 

So I can't hate the Colts because you think I'm crying over it? Whatever. Colts suck, Steelers suck, Redskins suck. Rooting against these teams in addition to rooting for the Ravens makes the NFL more fun. These are good rivalries. Had you been around and the Cards had not stunk it up, you may have developed the same feelings towards the Cards when they left Chicago.

 

Are you a Bulls fan? Wonder how you would feel if DC put a Michael Jordan statue outside of the MCI Center and talked about his great career even though he is known as a Bull, not a Wizard. Sure they have a 'right' to do it, but come on, it's an obvious reach.

[Bill Swerski]

Are you a Bulls fan?  Wonder how you would feel if DC put a Michael Jordan statue outside of the MCI Center and talked about his great career even though he is known as a Bull, not a Wizard.  Sure they have a 'right' to do it, but come on, it's an obvious reach.

 

625811[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I wouldn't care. They paid MJ to be a GM and, later, a player. They could erect a statue of MJ in Japan for all I care. The accomplishments of pro athletes are felt and appreciated by everyone.

 

I guess that's where you and I differ.

 

Indy can honor any pre '84 guys they want. Doesn't make it part of Indy football if they do.

 

Same franchise, different city. But at least you agree with me now.

Edited December 22, 2004 by Bill Swerski

[Big Red]

Honestly, I wouldn't care.  They paid MJ to be a GM and, later, a player.  They could erect a statue of MJ in Japan for all I care.  The accomplishments of pro athletes are felt and appreciated by everyone.

 

I guess that's where you and I differ. 

Same franchise, different city.  But at least you agree with me now. 

 

625859[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If someone puts a status of an athlete in a museum, I don't have a problem. If someone put a statue of an athlete outside of their team's stadium and that athlete never played for that city, I'd think they where retarded, but that's just me. It would kind of be like when we had the CFL. It was kind of like 'oh, how cute, we have a football team. They have uniforms and everything. Maybe one day those players will make it on a real team.'.

[Bill Swerski]

If someone puts a status of an athlete in a museum, I don't have a problem.  If someone put a statue of an athlete outside of their team's stadium and that athlete never played for that city, I'd think they where retarded, but that's just me.

 

625880[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

As long as it's on the team's property, it shouldn't really matter whether it's inside or outside. Then again, something tells me that you'd still throw a fit if the Colts DID put a Unitas statue INSIDE their new stadium.

[Big Red]

As long as it's on the team's property, it shouldn't really matter whether it's inside or outside.  Then again, something tells me that you'd still throw a fit if the Colts DID put a Unitas statue INSIDE their new stadium. 

 

625886[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think "throw a fit" would be a bit more than I'd do. I don't think they should do it and I'd probably get upset, but I don't think I'd throw a fit. It just doesn't make sense in my mind. They should set aside a space for Manning's statue, but I don't think they should look back prior to Indy NFL history to find a guy to honor.

[Bill Swerski]

but I don't think they should look back prior to Indy NFL history to find a guy to honor.

 

626149[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Given that Raiders fans in Oakland haven't "disowned" their SB XVIII championship won as the LA Raiders, I don't see why the Colts should be forced to neglect their past.

[Big Red]

Given that Raiders fans in Oakland haven't "disowned" their SB XVIII championship won as the LA Raiders, I don't see why the Colts should be forced to neglect their past.

 

626156[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hey, if you want to be just like a Raiders fan, go ahead.

 

Seriously, there is a difference there. The team left and came back. I personally wouldn't really celebrate it, but then again I haven't regained a team that left, so it's hard to say. I doubt many of those fans where happy when the Raiders won it, so once they moved back I don't see why that should change.

[Bill Swerski]

Hey, if you want to be just like a Raiders fan, go ahead.

 

Seriously, there is a difference there.  The team left and came back.  I personally wouldn't really celebrate it, but then again I haven't regained a team that left, so it's hard to say.  I doubt many of those fans where happy when the Raiders won it, so once they moved back I don't see why that should change.

 

626334[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If the fans in Oakland are still angry about it, why does Al Davis still claim it as a RAIDERS victory? Georgia Frontiere still takes credit for what the RAMS did in LA. I see no reason why the COLTS should not be allowed to keep their pre-1984 history.

 

Seriously, your bitterness is sad.

Edited December 22, 2004 by Bill Swerski

[Jrick35]

Swerski, do you even read the post?

 

How many Indy Colt fans where Colt fans before they got the team? 

 

Indy can honor any pre '84 guys they want.  Doesn't make it part of Indy football if they do. 

 

So I can't hate the Colts because you think I'm crying over it?  Whatever.  Colts suck, Steelers suck, Redskins suck.  Rooting against these teams in addition to rooting for the Ravens makes the NFL more fun.  These are good rivalries.  Had you been around and the Cards had not stunk it up, you may have developed the same feelings towards the Cards when they left Chicago.

 

Are you a Bulls fan?  Wonder how you would feel if DC put a Michael Jordan statue outside of the MCI Center and talked about his great career even though he is known as a Bull, not a Wizard.  Sure they have a 'right' to do it, but come on, it's an obvious reach.

 

625811[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Big Red,

It's not a question of Indy Football or Baltimore Football, it's a question of Colts Football.

 

No one is denying the people of Baltimore the right to love and honor any current or former Colts players. People are simply saying that The Ravens have no claim to any historical aspect of the Colts.

 

Just like they have no claim to any historical aspect of the Browns.

 

In fact the info below has been pulled from each teams History Section of their respective Official Team Sites. Please read it I think you may be in for a little surprise.

 

From the Baltimore Ravens web site:

April 20, 1996

The Ravens selected UCLA offensive lineman Jonathan Ogden with their first-ever draft choice (fourth overall). University of Miami linebacker Ray Lewis was selected with the second pick in the first round (26th overall).

 

It looks like the Ravens History started in 1995-96.

 

From the Cleveland Browns web site:

Browns in the Hall of Fame

The rich tradition of the Cleveland Browns boasts 15 members in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which is tied with Washington for fifth-highest total league-wide. Only the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants and Pittsburgh Steelers claim more Hall of Famers. Experience the virtual hall of fame.

 

Jim Brown

Dante Lavelli

Paul Brown

Mike McCormack

Joe DeLamielleure

Bobby Mitchell

Len Ford

Marion Motley

Frank Gatski

Ozzie Newsome

Otto Graham

Paul Warfield

Lou Groza

Bill Willis

Leroy Kelly

 

It looks like the Browns History started way before 1995-96

 

 

From the INDIANAPOLIS COLTS web site:

1946

(12/28) Bankrupt Miami Seahawks franchise of All-America Football Conference moved to Baltimore. Bob Rodenberg headed purchasing group and the team was renamed “Colts” via a fan contest.

 

It looks like the Colts History didn't even start in Baltimore. The Miami Seahawks moved to Baltimore in 1946. So based on your logic everything the Baltimore Colts did actually belongs to Miami.

 

So maybe it's actually a question of Seahawks football

Edited December 23, 2004 by Jrick35

[Big Red]

Look, the main difference in our opinions is that you guys tie most of the legacy to the team while I tend to tie it to the city. Since that is the case, we are always going to disagree.

 

I don't really have a major issue with teams celebrating their history, my main issue is with fans celebrating a history they didn't care about until they got a particular team. That seems to be the mindset here in Baltimore as we prefered to hold onto our NFL history from 53-84 instead of assuming the pre '96 Browns history. True that the Rams, Raiders and other teams had history with other cities than the ones they are currently in now, but I really doubt that fans think of that as part of their (the fan's) NFL history. I still think if you put a statue of Unitas in Indy, most people will not really relate to it. As far as the team claiming the victories of won in cities past, I don't personally care. The team is going to claim that as it is the same franchise, but I personally relate the title to a city more than a team. I relate Earl Campbell more with Houston than the Titans, Dickerson more with Los Angeles than St. Louis, Jim Brown with Clevelend more than Baltimore and of course Unitas with Baltimore more than Indy. Again, if Indy puts a statue of Unitas in their new statium, I'd just think of it as a bit retarded. If someone put a statue of Jim Brown in front of our stadium, I'd think nothing special of it.

 

As far as JTrick coming in late on this, I don't think he understands anything I've said. The Cleveland NFL history is the Browns, and anything that happened with the Browns (pre and post move) is Cleveland history. That situation is a model of how I think every move should go (of course no move would be better). All I am saying is just because the name of the teams from Baltimore happen to be different and one is still in use, I consider it one history from 53-84 and 96-present. The original AAFC Colts where indeed the Seahawks. The went bankrupt, moved to Baltimore and again went bankrupt and folded. This was an AAFC team, not an NFL team.

 

The current colts where started in 1953 as an expansion franchise to replace the folded Dallas Texans. I've heard people say that the Colts team is the Dallas Texans franchise, but I do not believe that is the case as all official history I've seen of the team indicates 53 as their initial year and all NFL records for the franchise start in 53.

[Bill Swerski]

Big Red,

It's not a question of Indy Football or Baltimore Football, it's a question of Colts Football.

 

627247[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That pretty much says it all.

 

What Big Red doesn't understand is that, just because Art Modell decided to leave behind the history and legacy of the Browns when he moved them (or, more correctly, was legally threatened by the city of Cleveland to do so), it doesn't mean that Bob/Jim Irsay, Al Davis, and Georgia Frontiere must also follow suit.

 

Al Davis moved his team TWICE and kept the Raiders legacy BOTH TIMES. That set a precedent. Art Modell and Bud Adams decided to start again from scratch and that's their business. However, Al Davis, Georgia Frontiere, and the Irsay family are NOT wrong for their decision to keep their team's history after moving.

 

Look, the main difference in our opinions is that you guys tie most of the legacy to the team while I tend to tie it to the city.  Since that is the case, we are always going to disagree.

627588[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And I'm sure that if the Ravens were called the Baltimore Browns, you'd be saying the same thing.

 

The Cleveland NFL history is the Browns, and anything that happened with the Browns (pre and post move) is Cleveland history.  That situation is a model of how I think every move should go (of course no move would be better).

 

Yes, that's your OPINION. The owners of the Colts, Raiders, and Rams disagree.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Bill Swerski

[Big Red]

I understand that none of the other owners didn't have to leave their history behind, however I still think that any fan who latches on to a history from before that city was invovled is just not right. Again, that's my opinion. My opinion on this is not going to change.

 

As for 'what if they where the Baltimore Browns', that would have never happened. Baltimore fans let it be known that we didn't want the name. That's just how it is here. Baltimore fans also let Modell know that we wanted cheerleaders, something he never had in Cleveland. He did that also. Amazing what picking up the tab for a new stadium will get you.

 

As a Ravens fan, I'm happy that we started our history from scratch in 96. As a Baltimore NFL fan, I'm always going to consider the Colts history prior to 84 an exclusive Baltimore thing. I'll never agree with the move, the use of the logo and all, but I don't have to agree with it. I know that the Baltimore fans remember and appreciate SuperBowl 5 and the two NFL Championships much more than Indy fans do and I'll always consider them more a part of Baltimore and less a part of the Colts. I don't consider anything Cleveland won a part of our 'legacy' and I'll never understand why Indy considers our past victories part of their history.

 

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.

[Jrick35]

Hey Red,

 

Actually I have been visiting this thread since it started. I didn't come in late. The info below is from the Colts History page of their Official Team Site.

The All-American Football Conference and the National Football League merged in 1950 and the Colts became a member of the NFL. After posting a 1-11 record for the second consecutive year, the franchise was dissolved by the league on January 18, 1951, because of its failing financial condition.

 

After two full seasons without professional football, NFL Commissioner Bert Bell challenged the franchise in December of 1952 to sell 15,000 season tickets within six weeks in order to re-enter the NFL. That 15,000-ticket quota was reached in four weeks and three days.

 

On January 23, 1953, under the principal ownership of Carroll Rosenbloom, the NFL’s Dallas Team franchise was moved to Baltimore where, keeping the “Colts” nickname, the Texas team colors of blue and white were inherited.

No matter how you slice it Red the Seahawks became the Colts in 1946 and the Colts joined the NFL in 1950. They were then dissolved due to bad money management. And then the Texans did indeed MOVE to Baltimore. So your beloved Baltimore Colts history has actually been derived from two different teams who moved to Baltimore from two separate cities, first Miami then Dallas.

 

 

Look, the main difference in our opinions is that you guys tie most of the legacy to the team while I tend to tie it to the city. Since that is the case, we are always going to disagree.

As far as tying the history of the Colts up to 1984 to the city of Baltimore, of course you should do that. Up until 1984 the Colts were in Baltimore. But just because the SAME people who owned the Colts in Baltimore, moved the Colts to Indy. Doesn't mean that the History of the COLTS can not be celebrated by the people of Indy. Johnny Unitas can be tied to the Histories of both the city of Baltimore and the Colts organizations. It doesn't have to be an either or situation.

 

And I am quite sure that some of the current fans of the Colts were fans from when the team was in Baltimore.

 

If someone put a statue of Jim Brown in front of our stadium, I'd think nothing special of it.

Of course you wouldn't find this to be special. Jim Brown was never a Raven.

 

I don't really have a major issue with teams celebrating their history, my main issue is with fans celebrating a history they didn't care about until they got a particular team. That seems to be the mindset here in Baltimore as we prefered to hold onto our NFL history from 53-84 instead of assuming the pre '96 Browns history.

You couldn't assume the Browns History. The Browns didn't move to Baltimore. And I didn't become a fan of football until I was about 10 years old in 1973. Does that mean I am not allowed to like anything about football that happened prior to 1973?

 

I relate Earl Campbell more with Houston than the Titans, Dickerson more with Los Angeles than St. Louis, Jim Brown with Clevelend more than Baltimore and of course Unitas with Baltimore more than Indy.

Relating Earl Campbell as a Houston Oiler as opposed to a Tennessee Titan is normal considering he never played for the organization after it moved to Tenn. But that doesn't erase his history from that teams past, nor does it mean that the fans of the Tennesee Titans can't think of Campbell as a part of their teams history. And the city of Houston is certainly allowed to think of Earl as a part of their history. But the Hosuton Texans can not.

 

As for Dickerson, it's hard to relate to him as being a part of any particular team over the other because he played for an awful lot of teams before he was done. Including your beloved Baltimore Colts. In fact I believe he is the 3rd or 4th all-time leading rusher for the Colts.

 

We've already addressed Jim Brown, you can't associate him with Baltimore because the Browns never moved to Baltimore.

 

And that brings us back to Unitas. Johnny was a Colt when the Colts played in Baltimore. Maybe he didn't like the move to Indy, that's his choice. But he was a Colt, is a Colt and always will be a Colt. And now the Colts live in Indy and they will for at least the next 30 years. And any history of the Colts belongs to the Colts. Any history of Baltimore belongs to Baltimore. So guess what, the City of Baltimore and the Indianapolis Colts can actually share Johnny Unitas as a part of their respective histories.

 

What all of this means is that we as people today can not dictate how history happened. We can have different views on it such as this thread has pointed out but we can't change what happened.

 

The Indianapolis Colts used to be the Baltimore Colts, used to be the Dallas Texans, used to be the Baltimore Colts, used to be the Miami Seahawks. And everything that has ever happened within this organization, all they way back to the Miami Seahwaks is a part of the History of the Indianapolis Colts if not the City of Indianapolis. Much like anything that has ever happened in Baltimore is a part of the History of the City of Baltimore if not the Colts organization.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Jrick35

[Big Red]

No way anyone thinks of Indianapolis when they hear the great pre-84 Colt names. People in Indy can think of it any way they like, but it's just not the case. In fact, up until Manning and crew, Indy Colts where in the same group as Phoenix Cards. Not the fault of the Indy fans, but that's just they was it was.

 

Saying the Browns did not move to Baltimore is just stupidity. You say the Seahawks and Texans moved here, but you don't think the Browns moved here? Uh, ok. As I've said before, I've seen reports that the 53 Colts where the Texans and I've seen reports that the Colts franchise was a replacement. My understanding is that the Texans players where not sent as a whole to Baltimore, so I would think this is not a 'move' in it's normal definition. I will look into this if I get time today (now I'm really curious).

 

As for where the Colts came from, it doesn't change anything I've said. We never speak of anything done by any of the former teams, Miami, Dallas or Cleveland.

[Jrick35]

Swerski, do you even read the post?

How can you ask Swerski this question and then respond to my post the way you did. You obviously didn't read my post.

 

If you mention Unitas' name people think of the Colts. If asked to make a distinction, of course they would say he was a Baltimore Colt, not a Indianapolis Colt. But the designation of a city does not change the fact that he was a Colt.

 

To say that the Browns did not move to Baltimore is not stupidity it is fact. If the Browns had moved to Baltimore then the History of the Ravens would include the years prior to 1996. Even if they had moved to Baltimore and changed their name. Now of course the people who started the Ravens football team were formerly members of the Cleveland Browns but as far as the NFL is concerned they were simply awarded a new Franchise in Baltimore everything related to the Browns stayed in Cleveland.

 

As far as seeing contradicting reports as to the Texans moving to Baltimore or Baltimore being a replacement team for the Texans, much like the Ravens were for the Browns, I'm guessing you don't have an argument. Because like I said before I pulled the information that says the Texans moved to Baltimore directly from the Colts Official Team Site. So that's how the Colts see it as happening.

 

As for where the Colts came from, it doesn't change anything I've said. We never speak of anything done by any of the former teams, Miami, Dallas or Cleveland

That's not true either because now your team is the Ravens and yet you are clinging to the Colts History prior to 1984. The Colts are formerly from Baltimore. Baltimore's team is now The Ravens. The Ravens history does not include anything about the Colts and yet that's what you are so upset about. So yes you do speak of things from former teams.

 

Now if you want to discuss the History of the City of Baltimore then you can talk about the Colts prior to 1984. And if the people of Indy want to discuss their current teams history, they can go all the way back to the Miami Seahawks because their current team is the Colts.

[Bill Swerski]

I understand that none of the other owners didn't have to leave their history behind, however I still think that any fan who latches on to a history from before that city was invovled is just not right.

 

627660[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The football fans in Indy, Oakland, and St. Louis disagree with you.

 

And, AGAIN, Art Modell and Bud Adams chose to start over. Al Davis, Georgia Frontiere, and Robert Irsay didn't. Neither decision is more "right" than the other.

 

Robert Irsay chose to take the COLTS (and their history) to Indianapolis. Art Modell chose to let the Browns and their history stay in Cleveland. No matter how strongly you favor one model over the other, that's the way that it is and you're just going to have to accept it.

 

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.

 

Ironically, I agree.

[Bill Swerski]

To say that the Browns did not move to Baltimore is not stupidity it is fact. If the Browns had moved to Baltimore then the History of the Ravens would include the years prior to 1996. Even if they had moved to Baltimore and changed their name. Now of course the people who started the Ravens football team were formerly members of the Cleveland Browns

627965[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I wonder how many "first incarnation" Cleveland Browns played on that Ravens SB team? Unless my memory is failing me, I don't recall the Ravens participating in an expansion draft.

 

Yeah, the Ravens didn't take ANY of Cleveland's history.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Bill Swerski

[CaptainHook]

In fact, up until Manning and crew, Indy Colts where in the same group as Phoenix Cards.  Not the fault of the Indy fans, but that's just they was it was.

 

627855[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Not nice Big Red! Don't compare us to the Cardinals. The Colts won the AFC East in 1987. They went to the AFC Championship in 1995. They were a wild card in 1996. MUCH better than the Cardinals in that span. No more low blows, or I'll have to resort to saying things like, "At least we had football!" or "We still have the Colts!"

 

Oops, looks like I already did!

[Big Red]

 

Not nice Big Red!  Don't compare us to the Cardinals.  The Colts won the AFC East in 1987.  They went to the AFC Championship in 1995.  They were a wild card in 1996.  MUCH better than the Cardinals in that span.  No more low blows, or I'll have to resort to saying things like, "At least we had football!" or "We still have the Colts!"

 

Oops, looks like I already did!

 

628199[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I knew that was coming, but at least I didn't mention the fact that the Ravens are the 8th most valuable NFL franchise and the Colts are like the 28th. Still, I had to go to an extreme to make my point.

 

Anyway, we each have our own opinions. We should each probably just think 'what a ***' to ourselves and move on. If they actually put a statue of Unitas in Indy, then we can dig this back up.

 

At least both the Ravens and Colts are great teams now, we could be Cardinal, Bengals or Lions fans. That would be a cripple fight.

[Big Red]

???

 

R-E-T-A-R-D is a bad word now?

 

Jebus Krist.

[CaptainHook]

I knew that was coming, but at least I didn't mention the fact that the Ravens are the 8th most valuable NFL franchise and the Colts are like the 28th.

628241[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hey, I said no more low blows!

[Big Red]

I went to the NFL.com to find out what they say. Basically, they say that the New York Yanks folded. The league gave that spot to the Dallas Texans. The folded. The league gave a franchise and the Texans holdings to Baltimore. Sounds like they basically kept the spot going to maintain X number of teams, but with no regard for the name or anything.

 

In either case, none of the folded teams seemed to have any history at all, so there is almost no point to discussing it. The Texans plays at least as many games in Hershey as in Dallas I believe.

 

From nfl.com (history section)

1952

Ted Collins sold the New York Yanks' franchise back to the NFL, January 19. A new franchise was awarded to a group in Dallas after it purchased the assets of the Yanks, January 24. The new Texans went 1-11, with the owners turning the franchise back to the league in midseason. For the last five games of the season, the commissioner's office operated the Texans as a road team, using Hershey, Pennsylvania, as a home base. At the end of the season the franchise was canceled, the last time an NFL team failed.

 

The Pittsburgh Steelers abandoned the Single-Wing for the T-formation, the last pro team to do so.

 

The Detroit Lions won their first NFL championship in 17 years, defeating the Browns 17-7 in the title game, December 28.

 

1953

A Baltimore group headed by Carroll Rosenbloom was granted a franchise and was awarded the holdings of the defunct Dallas organization, January 23. The team, named the Colts, put together the largest trade in league history, acquiring 10 players from Cleveland in exchange for five.

 

The names of the American and National conferences were changed to the Eastern and Western conferences, January 24.

 

Jim Thorpe died, March 28.

 

Mickey McBride, founder of the Cleveland Browns, sold the franchise to a syndicate headed by Dave R. Jones, June 10.

 

The NFL policy of blacking out home games was upheld by Judge Allan K. Grim of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, November 12. The Lions again defeated the Browns in the NFL Championship Game, winning 17-16, December 27.

 

 

[Bill Swerski]

Big Red = Big Crybaby :bawling:

[Jrick35]

One of the coolest parts of Manning breaking the record was something he said in his post game interview.

 

Interestingly enough it made me think of this thread.

 

I am paraphrasing but he said something to this effect...

 

Unitas would be proud of the circumstances under which the record was broken. If it had happened when we were way up or way down then it wouldn't have meant as much. The fact that it happened in the normal flow of the game with so much on the line made it more special.

 

"Unitas would be proud"...why do you suppose Manning would reference a Baltimore Colt QB after breaking a Marino record? Could it be because he considers Unitas to be the greatest Colts QB ever?

 

Hmmm, sounds like the Indianapolis Colts feel like Unitas is a part of their history.