The only time i use engine analysis is AFTER i do my own analysis.
This. The objective evaluation of a move is less important than your thinking process.
"If i had a nickle every time..."
If i could apply this to every time i hear someone at a tournament talking about how they were "winning" because an engine said they were up +.4. But when you ask them what that means? The blank stare is worth asking the question.
Kinda like last month in Reno. I heard a guy telling someone: "I'm really a 1700 player..." I was watching him play in the B section, and looked his name up, and he has been a career B player (Not that there is anything wrong with that) But here he is telling someone he is actually an A player, when he has never been an A player.
6.Nc6 with 7.Bd3 is actually one of the ways white can play this (whatever Sicilian this is called). The idea is to keep the e pawn as a strong point for now. Black doesn't want to push to d4 or to capture on e4. Later white can push e5 for kingside play.
But 9.exd was definitely a beginner-like move. Gives up the center for no reason.
After that playing to generate a passed pawn on the queenside would be sort of ideal, but at the moment it's very very slow, so that doesn't feel right. Playing for piece activity on the queenside also feels wrong because the lone target is a6 and it's well defended.
Maybe c4 to break up the center makes sense, but that's as close to queenside play as I think white should go for.
But of course the general advice is good, and applies to most positions. You seek play where you have some kind of trump (usually a pawn or piece superiority). Usually Nxc6 would be bad (trading a piece that's moved twice for a piece that's moved once and giving black more central control).