Patton, like most of the great captains, tends to have idolators, or utter detractors and very few people who will claim to be in between. Sadly, the same can be said for Rommel (Aggressive and brilliant, or the poorest logistician?), Bradley, Zhukov (Callous butcher, or hard-nosed savior of the Russian people?) and of course Montgomery (Hero at El Alamein, Pariah at Arnhem).

At the very least then, we can answer 'can we compare Patton to these other great captains?' I can say with confidence 'absolutely!' - insofar as their polarizing natures go.

and appeared to go after headlines rather than the broader scope big picture in terms of his strategic choices (at times, anyway).

This is fair, especially in light of your mitigating parentheses. To paraphrase /u/rittermeister, its hard to determine where the showman ended and where the human began. Was he a headline grabber? Absolutely, but no more than say, Mark Clark. Patton was egotistical, jealous (one only needs to read his comments viz. Montgomery to confirm this!) and flamboyant. Yet at the same time he showed himself to be deeply eager to get his army recognized for its achievements not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the men fighting under his command. In equal parts he wanted to gain recognition for his own achievements, for his subordinate's achievements, and for the men actually fighting and dying on the ground - which, at all times during the dash across France, Patton showed an acute understanding and empathy towards. In short, he wanted recognition because he deeply, passionately believed his men deserved recognition in equal part. Its an incredibly human thing to see despite all the puffery.

Was Patton a better overall general

Ah this is tough.

Can we truly answer this without being subjective? Probably not, I'll say this then: Patton, especially in the Summer of 1944, was the best man in the best position for the job he was given. His pedigree is undeniable, and he showed a competent grasp of commanding units in far-flung mobile warfare. People who have studied his command of the 2nd Armored in the maneuvers of 1940 and his dash to Palermo (albeit against very much third-rate resistance) can quickly grasp that Patton understood how to co-ordinate a pursuit. Would he have done better than Bradley, a down-to-earth infantryman in the July stalemates? Probably not. Would Bradley have been able to prosecute the wild dash against a stumbling Wehrmacht with the vigor and precision as Patton? Probably not.

The comparisons to Patton and Rommel are of course endless. Its hard not to compare them; both absolute legends (for better or worse) among the rankers of their commands, both seemingly highly competent in the co-ordination of all arms mobile warfare. Their mutual flair for drama and flamboyancy only serve to enhance the comparison. Oddly enough, they never met as opposing foes, and Rommel rose to a far higher command than Patton. The debate therefore, over who was the better commander, rages. Patton certainly seemed to have a far better grasp of logistics and command and control, but the argument can be made that Rommel never truly operated with the same robust logistical network as the Third Army has. Getting into the personal, I feel this falls on its face because the Allies during the height of Patton's pursuit were suffering from the same shortages of gasoline and ammo that were omni-present in the high-points of Rommel's advances in the desert. When it comes to tactical acumen, perhaps Rommel showed greater flair, but when it came to sustaining and consolidating rapid gains - something far more important, I feel, for an Army commander, Patton showed far greater competence.

My point is, generals must be viewed within the context of their time and the situation, and its hard to separate that from political considerations and media representations of them. Rommel and Patton are probably the easiest to compare because both men had remotely similar operational situations to contend with. It becomes far more difficult to say "Oh well Patton was much better at x than Montgomery" when comparing two utterly different situations, such as Montgomery's stalemate before Caen to say, Patton's stalemate in Metz. They only appear similar on the surface, but the enemy conditions, the supply situation, the gravity of the objective, all differ to considerable degrees. So we fall back on the blanket statement 'they were probably the right men for the right time.'

First of all i think its important to notice that knowing with certainty that a General was "good" is pretty much impossible despite what sensational book titles want us to believe. Most military leaders are judged by some important decisions but beyond that its nearly impossible to see which General was "better" for a variety of reasons. And here i go conform with the comment of /u/BritainOpPlsNerf which boils down to "hard to tell".

A variety of reasons make it hard to get a precise understanding of the skill of a General.

Just to give an example. The troop quality. Take Manstein for example, he is generally named as one of the most skilled commanders of World War II but often people don't take into context the troops he was able to command and a plethora of other factors. For example the second Battle of Kharkov. This Battle is a big part of his legancy. The counter attacks lead to stablizing the front after Stalingrad and a major defeat of the Red Army with substantial losses. But for example take a look on the forces he was able to deploy. Part of his forces was the SS Panzer Corps consisting of Waffen SS division 1-3. This units were on their zenits and likely belonged to the most powerful divisions of that particular time. After the battle was finished this units would stay under his command and tear through everything the Red Army send to stop them during the Battle of Kursk. Mansteins victory at Kharkov was impressive and the southern pincer during citatel pretty successful comparing to the north but would he had achieved the same with less powerful troops? Nobody knows and thats just one of so many factors. If Manstein would have bin part of the Red Army and commanded an army during Barbarossa he would have likely ended on the chopping block like many Soviet Generals regardless of his alleged skills.

Hasso von Manteufel is considered a good General but he also was in command of the failed operation around Arracourt but then he was commanding the successful troops during Bulge. Was he good? Was he better than others?

Back to Patton. What i have noticed reading books about the Western Front is that Patton without a doubt was far more aggressive than other Allied Generals. It feels correct to say he was the opposite of Montegomery. He was willing to take risks and favored big deep operations instead of safe full front approaches and minor land grabs and "safe" attritional victories. I have no doubt that Patton in command would have inflicted a bigger defeat at Falaise but on the other hand he also advocated a heavy pincer movement during the Bulge. Here is the problem i see with Patton, during most his campaigns he never faced a heavy armored German force while on the offensive. Montegomery had plenty of duel with Panzer units and maybe this made him adopt him a safer style. Patton like some others were pushing for a pincer movement during the Battle of the Bulge to cut of German forces which advanced deep into allied territory. On paper this seems smart but also highlights Pattons possible naivete. The armored forces present around the Bulge were enorm for German standarts. Panzer concentration at the Western front were rare. After Normandy most Panzer losses were not replaced and only later for the build up for "Wacht am Rhein" were new tank forces directed to the Western front. Many German offensive movements were restricted duel to oil, terrain and supply in general but in defense these forces could have wrecked havoc on large scale offensive operation. At this point in time Allied armored units never broke through when heavy German armored units were present. Most attempts resulted in minor land grabs and high losses. ( Cean ) The Bulge area was literally filled with hundreds of Panthers, Tiger Bs and Jagdpanthers trailling back to get transported to the east after the offensive stalled. An attack here during winter could have resulted in considerable defeat.

Soldiers who achieved such high ranks as Patton without a doubt possessed a remarkable skill set and therefore all were "skilled" to know with certainty who was "better" is hard to tell. Many British and Canadian officers were relieved during Normandy because the superiors thought they didn't satisfy the expecatations but i feel that around everyone of them their is considerable debate and this only highlights how hard it is to judge the decisions made because of factors we have no clue about.

Nevertheless in my humble opinion i think Pattons aggressive mind set was superior to many other Generals and iam certain he would have destroyed more German forces at Falaise....

Edit: Always the same 5 person to downvote brigading.