Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?
If Grant was to have fought against the Army of Northern Virginia in the first half of the war he would have been defeated most likely. He was mainly successful later in the war because he realized that a war of attrition would destroy the south because they could not match the economic power or manpower of the north. So I guess you could say he was a sound strategist, but a poor tactician.

With regards to Longstreet, his inaction on the second day of Gettysburg was probably the second biggest reason the south lost that battle other than the failure to push on and take Culp's hill(have to check to make sure I have the name of the hill correct) at the end of the first day when the union army was on its heels. On the second day Longstreet delayed some 8 hours before launching his attack because he didn't agree with the orders. As a result the Army of the Potomac was able to shuffle reinforcements from one end of the line to another. Longstreet was a very cautious general, but given the tactical/technological disparity this normally worked out well as the defensive force had a very distinct advantage.