Number of reasons to like both sides

By Gerald Strine, Globe Correspondent, 2/1/2002

he Rams are a firm 14-point favorite over the Patriots Sunday in Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans. In terms of the pointspread, a mini-blowout is projected. Only twice has the Super Bowl betting number been higher: San Francisco was an 18-point favorite over San Diego in 1995 and won, 49-26; the New York Jets were an 18-point underdog against Baltimore in 1969 and won, 16-7.

Fourteen is a big spread. Another way to show the wagering public's strong support for the Rams is to quote the Las Vegas money line on a straight-up bet (no points involved). A fan can win $365 on a $100 investment on New England while a $550 risk is required in order to win $100 on St. Louis.

If you believe the Patriots are going to be competitive and have a chance of staying close or surprising St. Louis, this is a golden opportunity. If you like St. Louis, the betting number and/or the money line will turn you off. Or at least it should. The Super Bowl should be seen as just another game in a 21-week series of contests.

I'm still recovering from the dazzling job Bill Belichick and his coaching staff turned in last Sunday in Pittsburgh. The Patriots were beautifully prepared, especially on defense. The Steelers' offensive line, one of the best in the league, never figured out proper blocking assignments. New England shut down Pittsburgh's running game without exposing the secondary. Kordell Stewart became a little shaky and, goodness gracious, Drew Bledsoe came off the New England bench when Tom Brady was injured to guide the underdogs to a well-deserved triumph.

Who knows? Maybe much the same result can happen Sunday. Once again, the best thing the Patriots will have going for them is Belichick. He's very special when it comes to buying time with a defensive strategy that catches supposedly superior offensive forces off guard. Against Belichick, offenses need time to adjust. It can take one series, one quarter, one half, or, as in the case of the Steelers, the whole game.

If Belichick was the defensive coordinator Sunday and Bill Parcells was the head coach (like in the old days), I'd probably be hocking this PC in order to get more mythical moolah to back the Patriots. But I have little faith in New England's offense, and the Rams' defense is playing better lately than its offense.

When St. Louis defeated New England, 24-17, at Foxboro Stadium in November, Belichick's defense performed superbly. An interception and a fumble recovery helped build a 10-7 lead and the Patriots might well have led, 17-7, at the half had Antowain Smith not fumbled inside the Rams' 5-yard line. Instead, Kurt Warner came right back with a pass to Marshall Faulk that put St. Louis ahead at halftime.

One play late in the fourth quarter still is remembered vividly. Ahead by 7, the Rams had a third-and-long and needed a first down to keep from punting and giving the Patriots a chance to tie the game. A timeout was called. Belichick and St. Louis coach Mike Martz went deep into thought. It doesn't get any better than that in professional sports today: Martz on offense vs. Belichick on defense.

On this occasion, Warner hit Faulk with a beautifully thrown swing pass down the right sideline for the first down even though the coverage was excellent. Martz jumped high into the air and broke out into one of the biggest smiles I've seen on TV all year. Martz won that round. And he knew he'd beaten the best in a mind game. In the final minutes when he probably could have scored a touchdown, the Rams coach showed the proper respect by having Warner take a knee several times to run out the clock deep in New England territory.

New England covered that night as a 71/2-81/2 underdog. I will not be shocked if the Patriots cover again Sunday. But I have to go with the superior talent. I'll take St. Louis for $50. And not one Sacagawea dollar more. After all, I've already beaten the Patriots once in the playoffs, with Oakland, getting 3 in the snow. The referee just didn't give it to me.

Last Week: Losses in both conference championships.

Net for week: minus-$165.

Net for season: plus-$490.

Won-lost record: 62-51-7.

That's a good season and it shows the impact of vigorish, of having to risk $11 in order to win $10. I'll wind up with $540 or $440. Either way, the column's 28-year total will go over $35,000. And it's been a lot of fun.