At some point do we say, OK, we hate the fucktard, but maybe he's even better than we grudgingly credit him for?
60s - Green Bay - Lombardi gets the credit much more than Bart Starr. Probably because the team around Starr was so good, the coach gets more accolades for building the machine.
70s - Pittsburgh - Noll gets more credit than Bradshaw. Why? After Bradshaw retired, Steelers didn't do a whole lot until Cowher came along. However, see Green Bay above.
80s - Both Walsh and Montana get credit fairly equally. I guess Walsh gets credit for building the team, while Montana is immortalized for the 4th quarter comebacks.
90s - Jimmy Johnson gets more credit than Aikman, largely because when he left the Cowboys didn't do anything after that first year with similar personnel.
00s - Belicheat and Brady both get credit, but I think Brady deserves more. Belichek did nothing in Cleveland. Do we believe that if the Pats didn't stumble onto Brady in the 6th round, then have Bledsoe get hurt at the right time, that the Pats would have 3 rings? I don't. Plus, the team around him has rarely been spectacular across the board. Plus, it seems that good fortune has been a more visible part of their success (Tuck rule, 2 special teams TDs in '01. Panthers KO out of bounds when they were storming back, etc.).
Looking at the trend, it seems the coach tends to get more credit for prolonged success while QBs get credit for individual games. In that case, Belichek probably deserves credit (which he gets nationally), but for whatever reason Brady seems to have a bigger role in the Pats' success than previous QBs had during their runs.