Let me break this down:
You originally said: "This is why it makes me shake my head when people drool over fullbacks and tight ends. All you do when you go to a heavy formation is bring more defenders into the box. Which is more guys to block, more blocks to not screw up and just generally more traffic to work through."
The topic of this thread was a pie in the sky model our offense after SF idea. You know, one of the only teams in the NFL that still uses a FULLBACK and TE regularly on the same play formation. The niners seem to have zero issue combatting a stacked box. Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game. Its one of the major reasons as to why Deebo, Kittle and CMC all lead their respective positions in RAC yardage (how's that for stats?).
You then disregard my response and try and morph the argument into an NFL vs. college conversation.
Then when I acknowledge some differences in the game, you basically say unless i back things up with stats I'm lying, but its ok for you to drop zero stats and make a point where we have to accept your assertion at face value.
Lastly, what about this exchange is not relevant to the original conversation? SFs success is due to a multitude of things- one of the biggest tho is how multiple they are in play formations and plays they can out of it. You literally responded saying it makes you shake your head when people drool over FB and TEs. This is why I said you r stuck in 2004. You act as if the offense has a play, see's what the defense runs and goes "aww shucks, they have 8 or 9 in the box, we're stuck with what we designed, lets hike it anyways".