Yes and no. I equate George Lucas a little bit with Stan Lee. They both had tons of creativity, and executed their visions remarkably well when in their prime, but ultimately suffered from some diminishing of their storytelling skills over time. And like Stan Lee benefitted from Jack Kirby as a co-creator, so too did Lucas benefit from Gary Kurtz. Kirby and Kurtz had strong ideas of their own, and weren't just "yes men." Lee and Lucas were better for that, imo.
Even when the Marvel characters and concepts that Stan Lee gave birth to had their most memorable storylines and moments during his runs, many of the books only really hit their peak after he left (even after he was no longer the editor there). With George Lucas out of the picture, I don't see any reason why someone else can't similarly take the SW universe and make their own vanguard impression with great/memorable films of their own.
I think the key going forward is a willingness to be bold and try new things. Going back to my Stan Lee/Marvel example: Daredevil hit new heights under Miller because Frank redefined the character and tone. Same went for the X-Men under Claremont. But if SW creators are too afraid (or LFL too unwilling) to take creative chances, then nothing will ever come close to touching the OT.
Lucas didn't rely on being "safe" and "familiar" when he progressed through his SW films. For me, that's one of his most admirable qualities. For better or worse, it's the only way to give the films any kind of worthwhile legacy. You can't/shouldn't just keep trying to do homages to the OT.
So, no, SW isn't better off without George . . . but, yes, it has the potential to be.
Without them the movies would have ended in 1977. Without the OT this board probably wouldn't exist, Sideshow wouldn't exist, toy action figures as a whole would not be as popular, etc.
