You missed the point. The 46 was something that was never seen before. That combined with great players to execute it made them dominate other teams. The scheme you run does not make you great. Teams then adjusted to the 46. Someone will come out with another defensive scheme to counter the current rules. Execute with great players and dominate just like the teams of old.
Didn't the same thing happen with the "West Coast offense"?
You're literally repeating what I'm saying. What made them great was not that they played a great new defensive scheme, it's that they crushed everyone. So leave the 46 out of it.
And again, my point about the rules is not that they're somehow great because of the rules. My point is that you have to look at how good a defense was in comparison to other defenses at the time. Sure it's possible everyone else was just terrible and that's why a team looked good. But more often than not in sports, there are other factors at play that make direct era-to-era comparisons less valuable than how much a team stood out within its era.
I totally disagree with your point about defenses eventually adapting to the current rules. There are some things you can't strategize/scheme against. It's like hand-checking in basketball (which FYI is always brought up in Jordan-as-GOAT discussions - not that he needs much help). Sure, teams have adapted - and that has resulted in higher scoring totals.
That will be because of the new rules.
I think I've said this about you before, but it bears repeating: You just can't teach an old dog new tricks.