Yes, I would believe that two minor pieces are better than a rook, especially the bishop pair.
However, I don't know about knight and pawns. If the pawns had some kind of positional advantage, like being connected or passed, then they might have it over the rook, but in a general case they would be losing I think.
The points are representative of reality but you have to know what the pieces want rather than which are better. Generally in conflicts between a major piece and minor pieces the major piece is better with lots of weaknesses where it can switch targets quicker, and the minor pieces win with fewer weaknesses where they can concentrate on one target and win it with superior numbers.
Then you have to consider the situation for each piece: open files for rooks, outposts for knights... and see which piece combination is happier.
I've had wins and losses on both sides of all these material imbalances: it's best not to say you have a material advantage, in the same way that its not after a gambit.
I have heard that 2 rooks are better than one queen which makes sense points wise but the more I think about it does that mean that 2 knights, 2 bishops, or one of each are better than one rook? Or that 2 pawns and a knight are worth the same as a rook or does that rook mean more? Thank you for your help...