I mean, I don't want to sound like a fanboy but considering I've just written my own takedown of the Mando's storytelling I'll add just a little here.

'Character growth does exist in the show'. That's mostly and grossly incorrect. Mando is much the same at the beginning as at the end of the show. Yes, he's helping Yoda more and embracing fatherhood, but the audience doesn't really feel the change because its not a dramatic turnaround from what he was in the beginning. Not even close. Removal of his helmet isn't growth, its making a non-stupid option. Change comes from choice between two valid options in story. If a characters choices are remove helmet or die, we know they're going to pick the option to live. And if that doesn't convince you, 1) the show wouldn't be called Mando without him, 2)we haven't seen him being a diehard creed follower until now. He just keeps the helmet on, but we haven't seen to what cost or point he will do that. He's never forced to choose between saving Yoda for instance and keeping his helmet on.

'The writing is excellent,'....I mean, ouch :S I'd love to see what you think bad writing is, if you think this is good. Have you heard the dialogue? Do the one-dimensional characters not bother you? Did Carl Weather's immediate motivation 180 at the end of S1 not seem a tad on the nose?

And just because the Mandalorian is decidedly better than the recent Star Wars entries, doesn't mean it's beyond criticism. I enjoy it and think it's pretty okay, even good when episodes don't meander around or are too contrived, but it's got nowhere near the writing power of Firefly or Farscape. Two alternative space westerns which succeed in the genre because they understood execution means more than surface level excellence, but mastering the tropes, character development and interaction and story progression.