To go back to the Gill (et al) vs Hooper debate the real issue that I see is the ARU signed Hooper to what many argue is a justifiable contract. Is the money he's on justified... Maybe.
The issue I think a lot of people are getting at and perhaps aren't expressing as clearly, is the value over replacement. If we say Hooper is the best 7 in the World - I disagree but let's assume that, let's even say he's completely worth his money- again I'd disagree but let's for the sake of argument I'll accept it.
The issue with Hooper is the value he brings over the alternative. Sure Gill might not be quite the player Hooper is (I'd argue he didn't get a chance to prove it), but would Gill have offered more value for the money -- especially considering the wealth of limitless back row talent we always have. Who could we have kept with that money, could we retain a Kalyn Ponga from NRL or something (the specifics are unimportant).
On a different note, Isi looked like he MIGHT be capable of playing test rugby, he finally stepped up to where he should be. If he's shown that every week then I wouldn't mind him in the 23. But the problem has been it's 3 games back before we finally see this.
On the AAAAA - Tupou discussion one of the big differences is you have 2 players in that position in every 23. 7's you don't often have two in the 23.