since there's nowhere else to put this I have to do it here. in response to your column about the ravens win over the saints, i have to say i'm disappointed in your search for negatives to a fault.

you had to point out that the refs blew the call on mcnair's "fumble" that was ruled an incomplete pass? i'm sure you're smarter than me on these things but even i could see it was a clear case of the tuck rule. seemed the announcers thought the same and no one seemed surprised that it was overturned... no one but you i guess.

i'm not a fan of the tuck rule and am (like you) more critical of the ravens than many in the area, but i call it being realistic. and realistically, the refs made the right call and the ravens played a great game... had nothing to do with the football gods.

give credit where credit's due. and if you want to keep things in perspective by bringing up negatives, just keep them accurate.

Billick had the offense looking a lot better, but one game isn't enough to tell if the demons that've haunted the Ravens offense since Testaverde and his 31 points per game was run out of town have been exorcised. New Orleans isn't exactly feared for their defense: they've managed to win games this year because Breeze and Horn can make big plays, which we saw on Sunday.

Even so, they are an NFL defense, so there's hope.

Side note: In your article, "Behind Billick, revamped offense now looks organized, energized" you said the officials blew the call on McNair's fumble. You're in error. McNair's was a classic case of the "tuck rule," made most famous by Tom Brady against the Raiders in the snow in New England. In fact, it was an even better example of the "tuck rule" than Brady's. It's a horrible rule and should be changed, since a quarterback who is trying to tuck the football is not making a pass attempt. Since the rule is in effect, however, the officials in New Orleans made the right call on the review.

I agree with the other readers--while I think the tuck rule is bogus, this was a perfect example of it. "NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

Sure, it's only one game, so it doesn't indicate a trend or anything, but...when I go back through the archive of articles you've written and I read how you've repeatedly denigrated Brian Billick's reputed offensive abilities, it just doesn't add up.

You've been assuming in a lot of your writings that he's been the major force behind the Raven's offense, and that obviously was not true. The Offense we saw on Sunday was night and day compared to what we witnessed under Cavanaugh and Fassel.

So why the disparity between your "know-it-all" observations and the reality of Sunday? I don't think you, or your Sun counterparts do enough homework. Your assumptions are clearly off the mark. You need to spend more time understanding the team and it's dynamics, so you can accurately report to us, your readers, what is actually going on within the organization.

Oh, and a little something I learned in my Journalism classes at Towson State was that above all, a journalist must be OBJECTIVE. You slept through that class. Do your readers a service and leave your bitter bias in your closet at home and bring some informed objectivity to your reporting.

Sunday MAY have shown signs that the Ravens do indeed have great offensive potential, but it DEFINITELY revealed your inadequacies as a reporter. You need to stop lobbying Steve Bisciotti for Billick's job and instead focus on becoming the good reporter that I know lurks inside of you.