Actually, yeah, I do. I know people keep saying that Djokovic looks like he's at his best, but I strongly disagree. Djokovic is good enough to beat the field, for sure. But he is still not near his prime level, IMHO. If anyone disagrees, they either have a serious recency bias or they haven't watched a lot of his older matches. To my eyes, Nadal is in the exact same situation.
Um, bolded the important part in your post. EXACTLY.
The difference is that Federer's game is predicated on ending points quickly. Nadal and Djokovic's games are predicated on destroying your opponent physically in long, grinding rallies and then crushing them into dust when they physically collapse. If Federer ran as many meters per match in his career as Djokovic and Nadal, he wouldn't have made it even until age 30.
Also, Federer's entire game isn't predicated on running around his backhand. It never was. He never had to do that. He does it if he wants to depending on his game plan. Federer's only strategy has always been: end the point, win the set, win the match, and get the hell off the court. And do those things as quickly as possible.