Fair enough. But ignoring any and all context about the games and just looking at the final score doesn't do much in the way of analyzing how last year's performance might translate into this year (which, I believe, is the topic at hand). I'm no Bill Parcells, but I think a team can be "better" than their record.
Admitted, we had a terrible staff running a terrible scheme that has been figured out by any decent offensive coach - i.e. led the nation in missed tackles and only forced 9 turnovers all season. That said, if our kicker makes a >30 yard field goal against Virginia and we make a stop on 4th and 14 at fsu (two things that even bad football teams are successful at more than 90% of the time), we go 9-3. Full stop. And I'm not saying we got "robbed" - just pointing out that simple execution on just 2 very routine plays (perhaps having a better coaching staff will help in that department...) is the clear difference between 7-5 and 9-3.
So, based on personnel alone, we were probably "better" than our 7-5 record shows - add that to the talent infusion on the front 7, an all-America/1st round type QB and competent professionals running things, and I can understand why OP is a little bullish (personally, I don't think we get over the Clemson hump just yet).