I'm not a fan of posting threads about one person. Rusty has a great deal of football know-how and the thing I object to- which is not something only he does but he does it frequently - is the name calling of other posters and putting down the validity of other positions.
Rusty's spot-on critique of political belief systems is ironic as the qualities he can't stand in other's politics are similar to how we experience him here.
I will spend a moment on narrative and facts. Some arguments are not fact-based but most "fact based" arguments are flawed as they assemble some facts but ignore other relevant facts.
The problem is narrative. We also use narrative to understand our world.
For example, a narrative can be "Without Gronk, we have no shot at a Super Bowl," or, "Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time."
Once that narrative gets too rigid, our pride gets attached and we don't accept evidence to the contrary.
So it comes down to whether your narrative is flexible enough to allow new facts to change the assumptions underneath the narrative or not.
Unfortunately, once you have decided that "Bill Belichick is the greatest coach/GM of all time and anyone who disagrees and believes Brady gets more of the credit is a pink hat", then your narrative impacts your ability to weigh out different evidence. You'll raise up evidence that supports your position (even if it comes from a previously discredited source like Stephen A Smith), and ignore evidence to the contrary.
So I don't want to hear anymore BS about "I bring the facts and you don't."
The question is: "is your narrative overly rigid, or are you willing to question your own assumptions." If your narrative is rigid you are not going to be any fun to interact with.