There will always be exceptions and guys who outperform their scouting reports, obviously. But I'm not sure why that is a knock on the concepts of 'floor' and 'ceiling' as tools for scouting analysis. It's an easy shorthand that lets someone else get a good idea of what you think of that player. I've said before that I think a guy like Blair has a really high floor but not an extremely high ceiling, which basically means I think he'll settle in as a good middle-of-the-rotation starter. Does that mean he can't eventually add something else to what he does and become a near-ace? Of course not. It just gives someone else a quick idea of what I think about them.
Without some way to express what you think a player's ultimate potential is along with the risk involved, you basically can only sit there and say, 'Good player. Good fastball. Pretty good breaking ball.' That doesn't really help someone figure out what you really think of them.
And again, we still don't know what scouts thought of the ceilings of the guys you listed. Just because Joe Morgan is small doesn't mean nobody thought he had power. People don't think Albies has much power because he hasn't shown much power or the kind of swing necessary to generate that power. He's likely never going to be a 15+ HR guy. That is a completely fair assessment of him.
And Ozzie Smith never hit. So if scouts said his ceiling was all-time great defense with a pretty weak bat, they were entirely correct.