I'll start this by saying that I absolutely love Blades, and I watch (well, listen to the mp3's. Are you able to see download stats for those?) every episode, so any critiques in here are just me spitballing and only because you're askin for it :P. As a GM who loves reading and listening about GM'ing (the zines, Office Hours, articles, etc), John is great to observe and listen to. I feel he really embodies the "be a fan of the players" style that he mentions in the Blades in the Dark rule book, which I can tell is amazing for the players as they all talk plenty about how much they enjoy playing the game (and inspiring for me, I picked up Blades and after running a session of it, my players loved it too!).
However, I do think that some of the other commentators are not off base in their feeling that this style can lead to a sense of a lack of danger. I think John wants the players to do the dope shit they want to do, and is sometimes a bit lenient with the consequences. I don't particularly mind this because I like seeing the characters do dope shit also. However, I will say (and this is my only personal critique in this write-up) that I would like to see things not go specifically Carriless' way quite as well as they have. Carriless is super cool and @iNcontroLTV made a hell of a character, however I feel like the only significant character flaw (his vice not really being a "flaw", since he totally owns it) we have seen is his hubris (a fun flaw to have) and that hubris has gone mostly unpunished which feels to me like a bit of a lost opportunity from a character development perspective.
I also feel that the feeling of no driving opposing forces in the game is a fair viewpoint. I think John puts it on the players to be the driving force, which I think they do a great job of, but GM-controlled antagonists that persist through episodes/arcs go a long way from a show/spectator perspective in my opinion. We get to know the PC's super well, but the enemies really only exist as a focus of the PC's goals and desires.
As for the game feeling like it's just going through the motions, I think the well-defined mechanics that facilitate downtime / scores are awesome for giving actual structure for the players to decide what happens. If you plop some characters into a town in D&D or onto a spaceship in Stars Without Number or something and just ask them "what do you do?" they'll be at a loss, since the games don't have rules for helping them decide what to do. In CoS, when the PC's got to the monastery town and bought their apartment, the player's did not really have anything to do until Adam put the town thugs situation in their faces. In Blades, due to the well-defined options available to the players in downtime, it is a lot easier for them to figure out what their characters spend their time doing when there isn't an obvious "quest" to do. I really appreciate this and think it has helped a bunch, but I can understand how it can feel repetitive or forced from a viewer perspective.
Anyway, those are my thoughts and observations on why Blades might not necessarily be as appealing to as broad an audience as the other shows. I'm just a rambling amateur though, would find it interesting to hear @AdamKoebel and @OneSevenDesign 's thoughts on it all! But I totally get if that would not be super comfortable to discuss publicly. Thanks for being open in your search for feedback @itmeJP !