Knight was something that was hashed out from the same basic template of abilities, and given a unique resource mechanic just specifically to make it different. The class could possibly feel a lot better if the focus mechanic were changed to a large pool instead of rough blocks.
Guardian tanks (which is the specific spec that I refer to) isn't clucky because of Focus management. If that were true, all knights would feel clunky rather than just the tank spec specifically. Guardian tanks are clucky because they have a lot of abilities with conflicting CDs: Vigilance works quite well because it explicitly operates within the confines of the 4.5 second Sundering Strike cycle (Sunder>2 GCDs>Sunder>2 GCDs, with all but one of the various attacks using a CD that syncs exactly up with that 4.5 second cycle), not to mention that it relies upon multiple abilities with excessively long CDs (considering they're pretty much intended by design to be included in default attack strings) such as Hilt Strike, Force Stasis, and Combat Focus to be resource neutral while still generating decent threat, not to mention Cyclonic Sweeps which reduces the CD on Combat Focus based upon the use of 2 attacks that almost never see actual use by Guardian tanks (Slash and Cyclonic Sweeps) thanks to their high cost, low damage, and the fact that Guardians tanks are already resource starved such that they couldn't really afford to burn that much Focus on largely redundant attacks. Guardian tanks, rather than being designed with a specific attack string in mind, are simply a mash-up of various archetypal attacks balanced roughly based upon formulaic manipulation; unless the CDs are explicitly tweaked, they're not really going to represent the same elegance of design that most of the other specs manage (presumably, the developers are going to address this with the skill tree tweaks in the xpac).
It's *because* of this functional elegance that pre-playtest theoretical design is so valuable. If the developers sat down and thought about what they wanted the attack string to look like rather than just designing abilities arbitrarily, it would've manage a more functional design. As such, I really see CDs as being more intrinsically tied to the construction of the attack string in the abstract and the damage values more tied to the need to apply weighting to the various abilities to encourage following the intended attack string. You build the attack string first, using CDs (both hard CDs by setting a CD and soft CDs by forcing the ability to require a proc or instant-reset when another ability is used) as the method of design and assign the damage values later, using generic guidelines of damage/CD/cost to arrive at something effective, both values of which can be tweaked based upon response via playtest (CDs can be tweaked if the intended attack string isn't effective, but damage values are much more likely to be tweaked to justify the attack string).