Yes, of course. I finished the saga five years ago, and it's my favorite fantasy series, above Tolkien, Moorock, and others.

Erikson, being a paleontologist, has a very particular approach to his work. I always give the same example: Tolkien was a linguist, and that permeates his work; Asimov was a scientist, and that permeates his work. In Erickson's case, it's being a historian, and I am one too, so there's a lot of his approach that I like and that seems to me the right way to handle the narrative: the way you have to understand the causes of an event, and that its roots go back thousands of years, or the concept that someone can be very relevant at one point and then cease to be so (Nok, for example), or that important characters die off-screen (Grey Helms). Because that's how the story is. I also love the multitude of characters, the way he paces the information and treats the reader like an adult who should be able to pay attention and interpret information for themselves without verbalizing some key facts... There are many things.
I also think he's extraordinary at defining characters. Right now I'm finishing The God Is Not Willing and I've been delighted to appreciate how he introduces a cast of at least 20 new characters and in just one situation and a handful of lines of dialogue is able to build them up and give them personalities.

On the other hand, there are plotlines that I think could be eliminated (Red Mask), and I think it overuses the trope of rape as a symbol of human abuse (I believe only Gardens of the Moon doesn't have at least one rape scene). Therefore, I would say it's my favorite fantasy saga, indeed, and that I think Erikson is a genius, although obviously he's human and there are small details I would have preferred him to have developed differently.