Heavy buy-in to the idea of talent carrying the day is a form of elitism. It's the idea that I can get to point X but you can't because I have some quantum of talent that is missing in you. It's reductive, partly for reasons I stated above, and my guess is that if one really looks into it, one would find it is also rooted to some extent in privilege.
When you look at success as the product of hard work and perseverance, you're not only providing a more realistic view of success in the craft, but a more egalitarian one where people who won some kind of biological lottery for talent aren't held up as separate and above the rest. It's also a more respectful view of those already successful, acknowledging the efforts it took to carry them there.
So, if we're talking about how to coach or teach or encourage new writers, I think you've got a point, in that we shouldn't shut people down for having "no talent." And I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss the role of hard work or the power of attitude. But it's hard for me to understand the notion that talent, however it's defined, isn't a real factor in success. People are all different, with different backgrounds and aptitudes and genetics and perspectives, and all of that is going to affect what each person is capable of.
It makes more sense to me to encourage people broadly to do the hard work of taking stock of themselves than to tell everyone broadly that they'll succeed it if they waste a chunk of their lives trying really hard. I mean, I wouldn't presume myself to be capable of answering that question for anyone but myself, but I find it equally presumptive to assume that everyone can be successful if they tried.