They're saying it's nothing special-- they're not aware of a significant talent pool and there are "no big video brains".
From there, the first two reasons stated for actual consideration in acquiring YouTube are as a defense or because even talking to them will make it more expensive for someone else to acquire them.
But that doesn't change much about this story: what does it matter that they note features-- already on Google's roadmap-- when they then, as their stated reason for actually buying YouTube, is as a defensive move?
Basically: "YouTube has some nice features but we're already building them and just want the company so Yahoo can't have them."
That doesn't make this picture look any better for Google.
That's not what it says. If you want to go that basic:
"Youtube is doing better at innovating here than us, but we have some stuff they don't, and if we acquired them we'd get the best of both worlds and deny it to Yahoo"
Even if you make the case this only anti-competitive there is nothing wrong with that behaviour by 2005 Google. It's not illegal or even significant in anyway.