The short answer is yes. In fact, Ottomans themselves were probably the originators of the idea of "Ottoman decline."

I am assuming you are familiar with discussions on Ottoman decline but I recommend going over two competent answers 1 2 from user Chamboz. Wikipedia page on "Ottoman Decline Thesis" is also good starting point.

Moreover, Ottoman decline is one of the most discussed topics in historiography and one of the first articles published on the subject is Bernard Lewis' "Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline." I think you will see the direct examples of what you are looking for.

You can imagine the major problems with the declinist approach. To name a few:

- When a state official or dignitary complains about decline, it might be the case that the empire at total is not actually declining but ruling elite starts losing its ground to new elites. Mustafa Ali is archetypical example, who after failing to get a promotion, started writing a global history and mirrors for princes with the mantra that things used to be better. Many known (Koçi Beğ, Akhisari, Lütfi Paşa) and anonymous Ottoman scholars complain about alien elements (ecnebî) infiltrating the ruling class and shaking the social boundaries. Seeing this is as a decline is highly subjective.

- Supposed magnificent times were not that magnificent. The rise of Ottomans from foundation to 16th century is impressive but declinist scholarship tend to downplay the choking points. Ottomans were on the brink of collapse after losing Battle of Ankara in 1402, there was succession crisis when a Crusaders Army appeared unexpectedly in 1444, there was a significant opposition to Sultan Mehmed the Second (Conqueror) during the siege of Istanbul, Ottomans had considerable setbacks while expanding in Balkans, and the war with Safavids almost brought down the empire. In the declinist writing, these periods are skipped over or treated as great times.

- Declinist narrative is usually weak in comparative approaches. When Suleyman the Magnificent and Ottomans were at the peak of their power, so were Charles I and Habsburg Spain. According to traditional historiographies of respective empires, they both transitioned into 300 years old steady decline. Many historians think this is too long to be in agony, so empires must have done something right to survive. For the supposed Spanish decline, another Reddit answer

- Of course, the success or weakness of the monarchy might not reflect welfare of the common folk. There are travelers to Ottoman land who report wellbeing and suffering of the people, both in golden age and decline age. Evliya Çelebi writes in 17th century that people of Baghdad are as prosperous as the time of Abbasids and the prophet, whereas Katip Çelebi sees Ottoman Anatolia is in ruins. It is just too hard to make generalizations on an empire that encompassed three continents and lasted six hundred years.

If you are interested in more comprehensive and recent work on the subject, with more examples than you can ask for, I recommend the dissertation of Alp Eren Topal, titled "From Decline To Progress" published in 2017. It is available online, let me know if you cannot find.

All that being said, I do not claim that Ottomans were on par with the West in every aspect or decline is simply illusion. Western discovery of the New World and foundations of the modern sciences had started its impact on the balance of scientific, economic, and military power. Katip Çelebi, the writer of Cihannüma (Ottoman geography & cosmography book) in 1650s specifically mention that the motivation for his work was the general lack of interest among Ottoman scholars on the Western advances on the aforementioned scientific fields. İbrahim Müteferrika, the Hungarian convert who brought the European style printing press to Ottoman Empire in 1720s, makes a similar point and prints Cihannüma with significant additions. Some historians believe this was the start of "Westernization" or "admitting the supremacy of Western thought" by Ottomans, but as you can imagine, this is highly contested.

edit: how could I forget, one of the first and most prominent Ottomans known to Western audience and explicitly used the phrase "decay of the Ottoman Empire" was Dimitrie Cantemir, Moldovian prince who had grown up in the Ottoman court but defected to Russia after Ottoman-Russian war in 1711. He starts the decay of Ottomans from 1670s, but Ottoman scholars had already been discussing the decline and corruption for at least 100 years. So, this is why I hinted that Ottomans themselves might be the genitors of Ottoman decline thesis.