I didnt seek that out. Happened to listen to the podcast. Found it relevant. Shared it. Pretty simple. It also provides data supporting my point - something you havent provided. Oh goodness. So its relevant to talk about the age of a take, but not to actually call you out for that rather than responding with a valid counterargument? You realize your original point was completely irrelevant right? And now youre talking about Ad hominem fallacies. Goodness. "The data says passing is more valuable. In pretty much every situation", is a factual statement. There is no fallacy there. Factual and relevant statements are not fallacies. Also not appeal to the stone fallacy. You have yet to actually provide a counterargument. Now youre just being an idiot, frankly. You think that its association fallacy to say, "Sometimes good teams run the ball well, sometimes they dont"...but you DONT think its association fallacy to say "good teams run the ball well"? Holy shit dude. Get some self awareness (and understanding of the terms you use for that matter). Good job. Dont explain your naming of RBs. Reality is, you have no argument. Youre blabbering. And when people call you out on this you try to excuse your behavior by saying they are making irrelevant arguments. Look Im more than happy to debate the importance of RBs and the running game vs the passing game in today's NFL if you are. But so far youve done nothing to provide an actual argument except be an asshole. Let me know when you want to have a real debate. But since Im feeling patient today Ill try and help you out... My argument is that... RBs are not as valuable as almost every other position in the NFL. Outside of a generational talent like Barkley who is a true 3 down back we shouldnt consider a RB at #13. Additionally, the importance of the running game is often overstated. The passing game is more important and effective. Now...would you like to try and refute that like an adult?