One of the things these arguments about Hickman's Avengers often come down to is whether you see the Avengers as the Marvel Universe's big powerhouse superteam, or a book with its own lore and core cast like X-Men or Fantastic Four. Both are valid approaches, especially since it started as the former (an all-star team with several powerhouses) and suddenly became the latter (Captain America leading an underpowered team of nobody ex-villains). Captain America and Iron Man are the core characters of the former approach, while to those who take the latter approach, the most important Avengers are the likes of Pym, Wasp, Vision, Scarlet Witch.
Hickman approached it very much as the former: the Avengers are a big super-team that needs to fight the foes no single superhero could withstand. He didn't treat the team as having its own lore, rarely used their stock villains, and very deliberately avoided using the core old-school cast members (except Hawkeye, who he was forced to use because of movie synergy). He treated the Avengers as an extension of "Marvel Universe" events like Civil War, much like Avengers: Infinity War was a Marvel universe crossover where the Avengers didn't even exist as a team.
I'm not saying his approach is invalid, far from it. I'm just explaining how Hickman's run looks to someone who prefers the "Avengers lore" approach. Hickman's Fantastic Four and X-Men, by contrast, feature the supporting characters and villains and plot tropes we have come to expect from the franchise, even though he finds new takes on them.