I don't really disagree much with what you've said; I just think it's more a matter of emphasis.
To me, what stands out most about the 2014 class is the fact that you can count on one hand the number of guys -- out of 23 signees -- who have made or look likely to make any significant positive impact (everyone's still waiting on Armanti; not entirely sure that Charlie would have offered someone who has always practiced and played with such inconsistent effort, to be honest). Most are getting buried on the depth chart by younger guys with obviously superior talent. Yes, it's true that there are players from the class that would be takes in any year, but they're pretty heavily outnumbered by the ones that would not.
The class ranking is not irrelevant, but it means a lot less to me when the staff putting most of the class together spent a tiny fraction of the time and effort on evaluation (with heavily reliance on recruiting websites) that the current staff does -- or any other staff actually doing good work in recruiting, as borne out in post-NSD on-field results. All of Mack's later overrated classes were either ranked similarly or better, but evaluation had been pathetic for years, and the results are clear: those classes weren't as good as we and the recruiting services thought. It's not only about raw talent, either. Proper evaluation involves finding good information about temperament as well. When he was at Auburn, Tommy Tuberville said that his staff only looked for guys that play hard every single snap. If you're recruiting off of Rivals highlight reels rather than putting in the hard work of scouting and sleuthing in other ways (talking not just to coaches, but watching actual games, talking to teachers, etc.), it's easy to be beguiled by a particular four-star's athletic ability and never actually see that he is a low-effort guy and poor teammate with an enormous sense of entitlement. Three-stars are abundant, but it takes some actual effort and work (and skill) to have a high hit rate with the ones that can be top players on any team. If you're going to recruit in the manner that Mack and his staff did in later years, it's pretty easy to put together a class that ranks well enough but is actually not anything special, for the simple reason that the hit rate will be much poorer than it would be with diligent evaluation.
I'm not arguing that Strong didn't make serious mistakes with his offensive staff, or that the team doesn't need to show a big improvement this year. But people with realistic expectations -- and I believe yours are -- understand that a team with most of its talent and its numbers concentrated in the freshman and sophomore classes is unlikely to be a real threat to win the Big 12 this year. The realistic expectations would be substantially different if that 2014 class looked anything like the two classes that are genuinely Charlie's rather than very much like the other classes that Mack signed in his later years.