If your deck completely falls apart because you do not have access to your commander you made a bad deck, plain and simple. You can certainly build a deck that's primary strategy involves your commander, in fact I much prefer decks that do (or at the very least benefit greatly from their commander), but you should always have a contingency plan. Removing the tuck rule simply encouraged bad deck building by removing a check for decks that were overly reliant on a single card they always have access to.
I'd agree with this sentiment, but at the same time, it's a bit of a spectrum, innit.. its a game of EDH; the main pull of the format ISN'T that it's a 100-card singleton.. Nor is it the colour-restrctions in deckbuilding. Or the banlist. For some, maybe it's the eternal cardpool. But for most, it's being able to have a legendary dude who's your general.
Yes, contingency plans are good, and you need a good plan B, C and so on. But the fun point of the format for many is being able to relatively consistently be able to play the general that leads the deck. For the vast majority of the more casual side of the crowd, i'd imagine that tuck isn't a very wanted rule.
I find that currently in EDH, 'problems' (i.e. the business cards) are waaaaaaaaay too good, whereas the 'answers' (points of interaction) are just way too weak. In a format like legacy where we can play 4-ofs, we can have efficient answers as a way to slow down even ultra-fast decks, and we have a good amount of consistency in finding said answers. That is fun. There's a lot of give and take, a lot of interactions, and even when playing against decks that deliberately avoid lines of interactions, there are still a lot more meaningful interactions than many EDH games i've played.
Not being able to effectively answer say a deck's constant looping of troublesome permanents/general in and out of the yard/command zone, etc, means that the game kinda spirals into something that just doesn't feel like magic anymore. That is just as unfun as having your general tucked (as in having to sit and watch someone 'ignore' your answers because they just keep looping the same cards over and over to get value). Maybe the tuck rule isn't the way forward to 'fix' the problem, but perhaps the penalty for the general being killed is too lax.
maybe the tax should be 1 for bounced to hand, 2 for normal death, 3 for exile, 4 for tuck, 5 for AWOL removal.