I suspect another person would have stepped into the shoes Washington wore as leader of the continental army during the American revolution. I dont know if that person would have done better or worse. Remember that war was really a long drawn out affair that the American forces won by merely tiring the British out and winning one big battle, Yorktown, by a fluke really.
To some extent.
However, Washington, while not a genius military leader was competent as a general, was competent politically, was trusted, and was trustworthy. It is really not obvious WHO would fill his shoes, unless the butterflies throw someone different than OTL.
The very way his nomination as CinC happened - a southerner proposed by a northerner, gave his leadership a good start with support from a much broader base in the colonies than if New Englanders had pushed for a New England leader, similarly with NY, PA, VA and the south.
IIRC, the other 'obvious' candidate was Gates, who would have been a disaster.
Or you could have ended up with someone like Benedict Arnold, a decent enough general, but not someone you want to hand that much power to.
I suspect the ARW would have gone very differently, and much worse for the US, without George. There might not be a US (but multiple independent states).
Of course, with a PoD that early, it might be possible to butterfly the ARW into something that doesn't resemble OTL at all. Make it not happen or not a war or ...