Terms like "worse," "boring," and "generic" seem totally subjective to me.
What if it's worse to have to frantically micromanage 3 or 4 units at the same time to eliminate an enemy heavy tank? Even Relic admitted this during its last set of patch notes, that a USF player has a much harder job trying to counter one unit than the Axis player. Their conclusion was that they have no idea how to fix this without a more comprehensive patch (which is the one coming soon we hope).
Others have said the obvious, which is that Pershing commander would only be used if it's actually better than all other options. Just on principle I think it's possible to devise a Pershing commander that has useful but minor abilities, and a Pershing that is itself balanced.
To my mind picking Pershing helps you avoid that mismatch of control and micro in the end game, but doesn't give you many of the advantages current commanders offer in the early and mid-game (Paras, LMGs, off-map arty, Rifle flamers, etc.)
I think it's fair to say the majority of the playerbase is tired with call ins yes, hence why Relic eventually listened to feedback and had the CP's changed about a year or so back now.
For the record I'm not happy with the current armour meta either, but just throwing out more DLC commanders with heavy tanks at the end is not the way forward. I say it's stale and generic because that's what it is, all four factions eventually morphing into the same thing with the same heavy tank stall.
For me medium rebalancing and tier adjustments to make investing in medium armour actually worthwhile for Ost/Sov would improve things ten fold gameplay wise. Hell even if you want more call ins there're far more interesting options that actually suit USF's original design than just another big tank such as the Firefly, Rangers, calliope etc that others have already mentioned ITT.
Rollo
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
