Devils advocate here....
What if a smaller broadhead caused less reaction from a deer and it didn't run far???
Or...
What if a bigger broadhead caused more hemorage and the deer didn't run far???
Which scenario sounds better? :p
In the theoretical world maybe one scenario plays out better. Does that relate to real world experience??? Hard to say. There's so many variables involved with what we are trying to do. We can never truely replicate the exact same scenario in a repeatable way to test each broadhead (the only scientific effort I've seen towards this is Ashby's work). Shot placement, angle of entry, rib/bone contact, radial orientation of the broadhead as it hits and passes, size of the animal, before/during/after reaction of the animal, toughness of the animal, adrenaline of the animal...etc etc etc
But I betcha if a feller hits bone he'd wish he had a narrow broadhead. If a feller hits guts he'd be wishing for a wider broadhead.
In the end I think you want two holes in the right spot so you can track it effectively. If you hit the right spot and get two holes the deer shouldn't run more than a few hundred yards, which is a small percentage of your total walk out there.
And I'm in the camp with the man above me. Dragging deer sucks. Carts are no good in terrain. Get a decent pack and quarter the deer. An average doe should be easily doable in one trip.
I currently use one of those military plastic packframe thingies with a belt and straps attached. Works well enough to get the job done, but I may upgrade to a kifaru.