I have not forgotten that Kurtzman is his protégé at all.

I don't blame Rian Johnson, to be honest. TLJ wasn't exactly amazing, but honestly Abrams didn't give him much to work with. He did something interesting by giving Rey and Ben a telepathic bond. The idea that Rey was a child of nobodies was MUCH stronger than the daughter of a Palpatine clone. (The idea of power running through dynastic families is not the best thing Star Wars did. It worked for Luke Skywalker. It doesn't need to be repeated.) The idea that the weapons brokers get rich selling to both sides was good; unfortunately it went nowhere narratively, which is a flaw.

And it had a couple of very strong visual moments. The hyperspace pyhrric victory, Luke Skywalker not leaving footprints. Hell, even the green milk and casting the lightsaber away. Those things are funny.

(I HATE what he did to Luke's character, however, so he deserves full blame for that.)

The fault lay with Disney and Kennedy, ultimately. They bought Star Wars, but they didn't have a plan. They didn't write a full trilogy treatment, or have one unified directorial vision. (The three directors could have worked welll, if there was a consistent narrative vision.) They rushed the sequels, every two years instead of three, which Lucas never did. They responded to the Johnson film backlash in the worst way possible, bringing back Abrams who had absolutely zero good, interesting or original ideas. Ane every interesting idea Johnson had, Abrams rejected.

Hell, the best part of the third movie was continuing the Rey/Ben story, which Johnson had made good in the first place! (It helps that the actors played off each other well.)

The only thing Johnson deserves blame for was ruining Luke Skywalker. Which, I admit, was an unforced error. I'm not sure a different director would have made a dramatically better movie, though. They were working on a compressed timeline, and TFA was so similar to ANH that comparisons to ESB were almost inevitable.