"But I think it probably is unfair to judge Drescher as being at all representative of what ordinary philosophers can do."

I agree, and I didn't do so (I used Dennett-type compatibilism in my list of representative views that you conveyed). Even when you do something exceptionally good independently, it can help to defuse affective death spirals to make clear that it's not quite unique.

"If you can't filter your good ideas and present them in a non-needlessly-complicated fashion, is there much point in pointing a reader to it?"

This is an authorial point of view. Readers need heuristics to confirm that this is what is going on, and not something less desirable, for particular authors and topics. If they can randomly check some of your claims against the leading rival views and see that the latter are weak, that's useful.