I don't think I'd like one-offs. Star Wars has always been about big storytelling, and most one-offs would seem like cheap cash grabs comparatively.
Beyond the obvious quality differences, Rogue One vs Solo is a good comparison. You'd think the popularity of these two would be flipped, since Rogue One is a movie with characters no one knows anything about and Solo is the origin story of one of the most beloved characters in all of Star Wars, but that's not the case. Rogue One was connected to the OT as a prequel of sorts. It was a fleshing out and continuation of the story, and while it could stand alone as a one-off, it played into the wider narrative. Solo was kind of connected to the OT in that it had Han and Chewie, but story-wise it didn't really do much other than make cheap attempts at fan service. Nothing in it was really original or told us anything we didn't already know. If anything, a lot went against Han's OT character.
I think Disney and Kathleen Kennedy couldn't help but make more movies like Solo and fewer like Rogue One because they're always more focused on the cheap tricks and tie ins instead of actual narrative. I think even Filoni and Favreau would have issues with it, too. It's why I really don't want to see a Mandalorian tie in movie with Ahsoka et al. It will inevitably feel cheesy.
