I think the general agreement is that indeed Moscow could have fallen in 1941 IF all resources were pooled at it. But even that would have been with consequences.
There would not be a "wedge" with the tip hitting Moscow, more a lance or needle. Such an effort could have been pinched off.
In essence, without a broad front, an offensive with Moscow as the only objective, is too "thin" to be sustainable in the long run. It would be Napoleon all over again.
... and then the effort will be hit by the horrible truth about such things: Logistics.
If AG Centre would be better equipped and manned, then everything would have to be carried across limited roads and railways to AG Centre (only). Great difficulty ahead.
So, yes. It could have happened but then the war might have been a bit shorter.
I think that is where Russia is descibed as a "funnel". But it opens up the wrong way. As anybody goes further into Russia, more and more troops will be required.
Leaving Leningrad alone with its immense industry is not an option.
Leaving Moscow out of it with its armaments factories and railway hubs is not an option
Leavng Donbas and the oil alone is not great either.
Attacking all of it in one go is a dangerous proposition.
Despite this, Germany nearly managed the impossible.
Ivan