It doesn't go far enough, IMO. In some ways many Soviet commanders were much better than their German counterparts. The purges of the 1930's eliminated a large percentage of the Soviet officer corps (sorry, I don't have the actual numbers in front of me). So, you had a cataclysmic war with a large percentage of commanders at every level who were inexperienced and poorly trained, aside from some notable exceptions.

/u/Aemilius_Paulus mentions the Battle of Khalkin Gol. It was a very significant victory for the USSR against Japan. I'm sure you know the name Zhukov. The two other Generals that were instrumental to Soviet victory were Grigoriy Shtern and Yakov Smushkevich. They were both executed during the various purges. This sort of destruction of experienced talent is exceptionally difficult to replace, yet there were other commanders in the Soviet Army that stepped up through trial by fire.

Within two years the picture on the Eastern Front changed dramatically. From the near total collapse of Barbarossa we went to the victory of Battle of Moscow in mere months. Then the disaster at Kharkov that led to Case Blau and Stalingrad, and then the exceptionally well executed Operation Uranus that trapped the Axis forces at Stalingrad and led to the destruction of the German 6th Army. Finally in the Summer of 1943 we have Kursk, which was the last example of German strategic initiative on the Eastern Front, which ended in defeat.

This shows that the Soviet leadership, both military and civilian, were in fact the betters of their German counterparts. They were quicker to absorb lessons, adjust tactics and modify strategies, made better economic and logistical decisions, and were able to salvage a virtually hopeless situation in 1941 and turn it into a complete victory in 4 years.