That's probably the 100-someth topic on the best Soviet genera of WWII.
My vote goes for Konstantin Rokossovsky.
Vassily Chuikov was also good.
And he is not in the list...

Meretskov, Yeremenko and Vatutin are missing too.
And Apanassenko!
Meretskov should not be in this list. Good solid general, very capable, but nothing outstanding. Chuikov was good, but there's something "being as scary for his own troops as for an enemy" about him, one of those Soviet generals who valued ordinary grunt as much as one values his lunch. Same thing about Yeremenko. Vatutin should be on this list, it's crying shame for me not to mention him. Apanassenko? I know about your obsession with this guy, but (due to his premature death) he proved himself to be more of outstanding military organizer than battle general.
Isn't it generally accepted
You need to be careful with this "generally accepted" bit, as far as recent history is concerned. Cold War brought up two "generally accepted" POVs, each was generally accepted by one camp and generally despised by another camp. Different factors were at play to create those POVs, but quest for the truth wasn't one of them, or at least it wasn't high on the priority list. Getting advantage for their respective camp trampled quest for the truth every time. Former ComBloc historians re-assessed their "generally accepted" POVs after the Cold War but Westerners, considering themselves winning side, held their delusions as absolute truths. History not being an exact science at all, delusion can be generally accepted as long as it has powerful lobby interested in keeping it "generally accepted view". And, taking into account that scientific establishment of today made their careers on establishing those "truths", it is no wonder there's very little appetite for soul searching. Nowhere is it more evident than in Western views of RKKA's history, shaped by the dire need to de-humanize potential foe and represent it as a horde of primitive untermenchen.
RKKA training was atrociously bad, though, especially for officers?
Yes and no. Correct definition is "adequate", or what was considered by superiors as adequate. In the darkest days of 1941 it could have been days for an ordinary grunt (however, those hastily mobilized units weren't even called "army", it was "volksturm"), normally it was 6 to 8 months. It is true that Soviet commanders were not concerned with value of every human life in a sense we are concerned today (although Douglas Haig would have been able to understand Soviet approach immediately), but they valued human capital. Pilots were expensive, grunts were mostly expandable, everybody else in between.
A month or two at military school if you were lucky, or direct commission in many cases.
Direct comission was rare to non-existent (sergeant or even gifted soldier could be
temporarily promoted to platoon or even company commander at the heat of the battle, but it was strictly temporarily assignment and he was due to be immediately replaced once front stabilizes a bit). Military school usually lasted about 6 months (for seasoned vets, sent from front lines) to a year (for high school graduates, who needed initial shakedown to military life first). Not fat, but did it differ
that much from what Americans were getting?