Well, no. I mean, yes.
Yes and no!
Your point is well-taken (I agree that good rules are better than bad rules) and that certain rules enable certain styles better, and that, for example, the gear/load system for BiTD is great for a heist game; but, perhaps, would not be so wonderful for a grittier game. A simplified encumbrance system (like the one for Torchbearer) might be useful in that circumstance where you do have to plan out your dungeon crawl a little bit more but don't want to get too deep into the fiddly bits.
But my point was a little different. The introduction of a rule, ANY RULE, means that players will naturally employ that rule. To use the encumbrance example- imagine a game where encumbrance just wasn't a rule. At all. No gear/load. No simplified encumbrance. The character just carried what the player thought was reasonable, Done and done. As soon as you introduce a rule, no matter how wonderful and elegant, you have to use it.
This was the objection to the introduction of the thief in D&D (oh, no you have to have an ability to climb a wall, or hide?), to most social skills (what, I have to roll to talk to a guard?), and as a broader criticism with certain RPGs (players don't know what to do unless they have a "push button" skill to use).
In other words, it's not so much about the elegance of any particular rule, so much as an observation that the introduction of rules into areas where there were not previously rules naturally constrains activities.
See also my oft-repeated observations about adjectives. If you have a box, and then you have a green box, it can no longer be any other color. Some people prefer to play with a minimum number of pre-set adjectives, that they might choose for themselves what type of box they are in.