I'm sure they were stronger and faster, mostly because of training. They spent most of their time training, and were well cared for, giving them an advantage over a less well trained (and in some instances less healthy) army. There was, of course, the physical requirements to even be in the legion, which also gave them an edge.
I would not go as far to say that they were *always* outnumbered, I don't really know the battle figures...I do know that the Romans had recurve and composite bows which were incredibly powerful. A gladius is short, but anyone who know's how to use a short sword knows how to use it to advantage. Every weapon has a weakness and a strength, and in order to be effective the soldier must know his weapon's weaknesses and strengths. A short blade is actually ideal in close combat situations. A spear (which many of Rome's enemies used) is great for a distance, or for throwing, but once the opponent gets inside the range of the spear, it becomes useless. The shortsword rules on that battlefield.
Roman organization was supurb (in part due to extensive training) which is extremely effective on the battlefield when it can be maintained.
I don't really see the point of comparing Roman generals to Patton. Patton lived in a different time, fighting and leading men in very different situations than the Romans could ever face in their time. In my opinion, comparing a Roman to Patton is like comparing apples to oranges.