I read it. You clearly didn't read my response.
Going back and fixing less-used abilities is the primary stated goal of development time to be spent on 6.0 toolkits. "Well they should do that, then!" Yes, they said this is exactly the kind of thing they intend to fix.
The question is "how" they fix it.
When you look at a skill as just "something you press", then Leg Sweep as a 30s damage-fluff skill would seem like a good idea. I did not compare the current Piercing Talon to Leg Sweep. I did not compare any way Piercing Talon could be fixed except your own to Leg Sweep. Your suggestion, the one you agree to be the metaphorical "Leg Sweep", is the one way one could "fix" Piercing Talon (make it a button we press) without fixing its functionality or giving it real purpose or augmenting gameplay in any way. We agree that as it stands it's a dead skill. 6.0 will be revising or replacing dead skills. But I certainly don't want to see it replaced with yet more bloat -- the largest contribution SB has made to our hotbars despite stated goals to the contrary -- and I certainly don't want to see the functions it can and should fill, under its current name or otherwise, scrapped completely -- chapter closed on that section of gameplay, despite it working well if just designed well, with those good examples soon to follow. Simply pressing buttons does not make gameplay.
Buttons are a means, not an end.
Read through any of the times I've mentioned the skill. Not once have I praised the skill as it currently exists. I have pointed out where melee-downtime mitigation skills have worked, why they are useful, and what its current issues are outside of those few cases where it currently works. You look at it done right, figure out why it works there and not here and then you decide whether or not a DRG should be able to align its rotation to downtime (which a ranged skill currently is, and yet it feels really good when that bit of extra player skill pays off).
Because my repeatedly calling it a broken skill shows my tremendous interest in the skill? How many times must I remind you that concept is not the same thing as implementation? That's like saying I like a shit gun in some game just because I said "it'd be nice if this single-load rifle was worthwhile, rather than just having the whole class of weapons removed from standard play due to going unused for being undertuned." I don't. I like what it could be if designed with an interest in gameplay (in the decisions that can be made, effect on skillgap, and the discussions that can surround learning a fight because of its being there) rather than just "I need to hit more buttons."