Arguing against Tom Brady is one of the most popular things to debate if you're an analyst for ESPN these days. Especially with less than a week until Tom Brady starts his 7th Super Bowl, two more than John Elway who is second on the list of starting quarterbacks in Super Bowls. Elway however, is 2-3 in the big game, which does not come close to the having the most rings for a starting quarterback. With a win on Sunday, Brady will hold that record as well with five Super Bowl rings. Even with what could be five Super Bowls after Sunday, once again rating-craving announcers are looking for ways to argue against Tom Brady. I am usually the first person to criticize a New England team when something is wrong, but there is simply no legitimate argument about Tom Brady not being the greatest. The trend this week has been the infamous “What If” argument, where analysts pick out certain plays in big games and pretend they never happened or replace them with alternative scenarios favoring the other team. By this logic, they say if these certain plays did not go Brady’s way, he would not have won those games.

For example, one popular argument is that if Pete Carroll decides to run the ball at the 1 yard line in Super Bowl 49, Brady is 3-3 instead of 4-2. Or possibly if Adam Vinatieri missed one of his crucial kicks in the Super Bowls which were played over 10 years ago, he could possibly have a losing record. For writers that work for the biggest sports network in the world, making millions of dollars, their arguments seem to be very weak and not so well thought out, especially if a freshman in college can easily pick out the flaws.

Let’s start with the 2007 Super Bowl. First of all, the main point of the argument was that Tom Brady led what could have been a game-winning drive as the Patriots scored a touchdown with 2:42 remaining in the game, leaving the defense to seal the championship. However, as the story goes, David Tyree makes the impossible helmet catch and the Giants score with 30 seconds left, leaving Brady no time to mount another comeback. What is slowly forgotten about that drive however, is Rodney Harrison and Asante Samuel both dropped easy interceptions in the final drive. So hypothetically, let's say “What if” one of them did catch a ball they almost always catch in any other game. Or let’s say David Tyree drops a ball that he usually does drop in any other game. Then maybe instead of 4-2 Brady is 5-1 in Super Bowls. Since these ESPN analysts like to imagine what could of been, I will go along with it for the sake of the argument.

But what about the 2012 Super Bowl? There's surely no play in that Super Bowl that could make a difference in Tom Brady’s loss. Once again, wrong statement. Wes Welker played a key role in that game with a 2nd and 11 drop inside the Giants 20 yard line with four minutes on the clock. The Patriots were already up by two, and with the Giants only having 1 timeout left, a first down would have put them in bad shape. Then there was the Mario Manningham catch, which I am hesitant to count because that play was not luck. It was a great throw followed by an even better catch. After once again, his defense let him down, Brady was left with less than a minute to pull off a miracle comeback. This final comeback attempt was highlighted with a Deion Branch drop which would have went for at least 25 yards, as well as one-legged Rob Gronkowski not being able to dive for a tipped Hail Mary on the last play of the game. So once again, “What If” these plays went the Patriots way? Well than maybe we are possibly looking at Tom Brady going undefeated in Super Bowls leading into Sunday.

What about if Malcom Butler drops the interception, or Pete Carrol runs the ball in Super Bowl 49? Well what if Jermaine Kearse doesn't come down with what should be considered one of the luckiest catches in the history of the NFL. We can play the “What If” game all day and there will always be a counter to anything said against Tom Brady.

Once agin this is not an argument for Brady. I am not arguing he should be 6-0. This is a point to show how absurd this argument really is. You can imagine many plays in his six Super Bowls going the other way, but they didn’t. This argument needs to be thrown out the window and never talked about again. It is simply used as an excuse for the ESPN guys to make themselves sound a little smarter. Argument destroyed.