To me, good writing is good writing, regardless of tropes, clichés, etc.
Great for you, but for me it's not nearly the same. For me, it's a matter of ambition. Common tropes are a way to connect to an audience without much work.
FMA:B, Avatar: The last Airbender and Star Wars IV-VI are examples of works that are really well written but play pretty much every trope straight. They are nearly flawless, but the sole reason that they can be nearly flawless is because they aim for very little. On the opposite spectrum, works like Evangelion or the CA arc aim for something so high that it would be borderline impossible to achieve, so they are destined to be flawed. Not only that, but the common tropes like "farmboy leaves his hometown to defeat evil overlord" are very accessible to most people, while subverting tropes, and doing so as excessively as in the CA arc for example, will alienate a huge portion of your audience no matter what, look at all those people who love shows like Fairy Tail and think that the CA arc is basically the worst shit ever. And no matter how well written something ambitious is, some people will always call you pretentious, for the sole reason that it's unaccessible to them, and they don't like to feel dumb, so obviously it's the authors fault.
Yes, people throw around words like pretentious or deconstruction without much thought, but they have their purpose. Some shows are pretentious, some are deconstructions, 95% of the time these words are used the shows probably are neither. That's in the nature of these words, because using them correctly requires a deep understanding of writing which most people don't have (ironically, this sentence is arguably extremely pretentious). Other "buzzwords" like edgy or melodrama are much more often spot on because they're way less abstract.
A lot of the uses aren't even consistent. One second, killing the bad guys because they're evil is considered a trope, and the next, the protagonist forgiving them and not killing them is considered a trope.
No, nothing about this isn't consistent.
Akame ga Kill does the first one all the time, and is called cliched for a reason.
Naruto does the second one all the time, and is called cliched for a reason.
HxH for example subverts both with Chrollo vs Kurapika at the end of YN.
There are things considered tropes that, when put into action by a skilled writer, can work beautifully. On the flip side, something being unique or non-trope-esque does not automatically equal better.
Yes, that's obvious. Tropes aren't bad. But when a common trope is used for great effect by a skilled writer, it stops being a cliche, even if he plays it straight and doesn't subvert it. Something unique or subverted is not automatically better, but it is most likely better, for the simple reason that the author has thought about why something has to be this and this way. And if the author decided, after thinking why something has to be this and this way, that it's better to play the trope straight, that's just as fine. But most of the time that doesn't happen.