I get out, you're not interested in trying to understand the actual skill position limitations on the team and how those affect play calling. Fine. I, however, do care. I would like to try and better understand the rationale of why passing oriented sets are better for this team (even minus Rodgers and Cobb).
Also, your comment about a "fallacy" was off base. The statement I referred to said that spreading out the defense was advantageous. There was no stipulation or analysis about HOW that was better. According to that blanket statement, spreading out the defense is better, therefore it must be better for everyone. That's how Wilson and Giants were brought in. I was bringing up examples to prove that simply saying "spread out the defense" isn't real analysis since it doesn't pertain under all circumstances; it's better for some teams than others. I'm trying to understand WHY it's better, even when we're missing Rodgers and Cobb, for this team.
I'll answer your concerns using only things that have already been posted as it seems you haven't read them. If you read them carefully, you'll see how and why spreading out the defense was better for the Packers. You'll also see reasons it was good for them, but how it wouldn't be better for every team.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with them, but to continually ask for reasons over and over when they are being presented to you makes no sense.
Previous posts:
"I did mention that some teams run better in tight sets and others in spread. That's absolutely a personnel thing as I'm sure Boykin was much more of a threat that Bostick(I don't think he's much of a run blocker either). Another thing to think about is Lacy came from a one back system at Alabama and he probably runs better without Kuhn than he did with. I think I read on twitter one day that 3 WR 1 TE and 1 RB was far and away are best personnel grouping."
"Honestly I wouldn't think I'd have to explain this: It's easier to run the ball when the defense has fewer defenders in the box."
"To my eye, Lacy runs better out of spread sets."
"The Packers don't have a dominant run-blocking OL and they don't great run-blocking TEs or a great run-blocking FB. If they had those elements going away from 3 WR sets more would have made sense once Rodgers got injured. But because the Packers are more of a finesse run-blocking team it made more sense to spread the defense out and run the ball against a more spread out defense. If they did what you suggest IMO Lacy would have had a much tougher time with defenses keying on the running game more than they were."
"The key to me would be to having as many passing sets start off looking just like the running sets so that the defense has to respect both. Rodgers can spread the field with 3+ because defenders are scared of that. They aren't scared (yet) of Tolzien doing the same."
"When our running game was better than our passing game, it made sense to get the defense in formations that would help it. Our passing game would have struggled regardless of the defensive formation. Other teams not down to their 3rd/4th string QB options could have not had a 3WR set, yet still not face a loaded box because the QB would have found open guys in the passing game."
"The strength of the team without Rodgers was the running game. Therefore, they used formations that favored the running game."