There were no shortage of things the Baltimore Sun’s Dave Zurawik disliked about Marv Albert and Rich Gannon’s work calling Sunday’s Ravens/Browns contest (“it was as if the two had no idea what the big questions were this year when it came to the Ravens”). Most galling, however, in Zurawik’s considered view, was Gannon’s failure to get his hands dirty. Figuratively, of course.

Listening to him is like eating airline food; it’s flat, tasteless and absolutely unfulfilling. He offers nothing but the most superficial, obvious analysis — and even that is sometimes wrong.

Here’s what it comes down to: Gannon kept telling viewers about all the “great conversations” he had the night before with various players and coaches on both teams. He used what they allegedly told him as support for his analysis.

But that’s the easy research. That’s the sit-on-your-butt, chat-em-up, blah-blah-blah research. And I am using the word “research” loosely, because a lot of what they are being told is spin and hype.

But once you get past Phil Simms, the CBS analysts never seem to do any deeper research. You seldom hear them talking about looking at film or talking to the hometown beat writers or getting into town early in the week and going out to the practice field.