I really appreciate Bob Hoover's immense contribution to our understanding flying, and am hardly qualified to second guess him, but perhaps what he said can be expressed:
"you can do anything in an aircraft providing you have the airspeed".
Too much speed can require management, but of course we know that.
The reliance on AoA to assure that the "speed" will be right on approach is okay for most landings, as long as the pilot realizes that certain approaches could require more margin than that provided by adherence to an AoA. For my experience in single engined GA aircraft, if a pilot needs an AoA to safely fly a good approach, that pilot needs more mentored experience on type.
The aftermarket AoA systems are very good, but may not subject to the certification standards for function and reliability. A bumped probe will not attract attention during a walk around, but will surely result in errant information - could you tell you were getting wrong AoA information on final? And when would you most likely be really trying to tuck the plane into a tight landing area? During a forced approach - at which point you may have turned off the master in accordance with established procedure, and you'll no longer have the AoA indication. Does anyone put a cover over the AoA probe, as they do a pitot tube cover? Could you misalign the probe putting the cover on?
Future designs of aircraft may include AoA as a part of the type design, and I hope, indication which is very "eyes out" for ease of use. Indicators as far out the nose as they can be placed, and somehow operational during a forced approach with systems secured. Still, pilot will have to be aware of factors associated with very steep approaches, where the AoA could "trick" the pilot into thinking the approach was okay, and yet leave inadequate reserve of airplane energy to safely execute a larger than normal flare.
There is no substitute for just getting a good feel for the plane in different approach configurations, and possibly referring to the ASI occasionally.