This is spot on. What I would add is that even lazy or easy writing can be saved by an understanding of the tone and background of the show.

My favourite example of this is The Big Bang Theory. A lot of people hate it because it's a show that glorified nerd culture in a poor way, but ultimately it's just a sitcom that exemplified that good people have their own struggles that aren't dissimilar from each other - whether it's a struggling actress making their way, a postdoc worker struggling to make their mark, or a genius that learns that ignoring personal growth will affect him professionally. It packs this into a basic plot for several seasons, and then writes an entire new prequel that is more of the same - except with enough tweaks to show that Sheldon's retelling of events was due to his own naiveté in what it's like to raise a family. It might not win Emmy's or be studied for decades after like The Wire, but the writers knew the material and knew how to stay faithful to the core story.

It is often so obvious when a show has an idea for a beginning and an end, but nothing in-between (Good Place), or when a show is basically just a bunch of ideas and no plot (Lost). I'd probably say that you need good writers, not necessarily good writing, to make a good show.