My list (and in no particular order, except for number one).
Belichick- No question.
Reid
Arguments for: Super Bowl appearance. Dominated the NFC East for many a season and got his team to the NFCCG three years in a row before losing in the Super Bowl. Has kept the team in positions to win despite McNabb struggling to stay healthy for a whole season.
Arguments against: Playcalling and decision making (who can forget Super Bowl 39?).
Gruden
Arguments for: Super Bowl championship. He gets a good deal of love from me for doing what he did in Oakland with Al Davis. He's had up-and-down years in Tampa Bay but has retooled an offense without a "franchise" quarterback into something respectable.
Arguments against: "Won it with Dungy's team," (although I'd argue that him doing what Dungy failed to do many a time with roughly the same team makes him a better coach than Dungy). His decision to let the players go on a two week holiday to end this season was stupid and came back to bite him in the ass come the Wild Card round of the playoffs (new Tampa Bay coach acting like the old Tampa Bay coach=bad for Tampa Bay fans).
Fisher
Arguments for: Super Bowl XXXIV appearance. Has kept his team in contention for many a season. Several twelve-win-or-better seasons on his resume.
Arguments against (and I lead more this way): Has more average or worse season's on his resume than double digit win campaigns (by a lot). In fourteen seasons, has just three division championships. In the last four seasons he has a sub-.500 winning percentage (27-37), even with a gift game to end this season to get in the playoffs as a wild card (with a first round exit, to boot).
Tom Coughlin
Arguments for: One Super Bowl appearance on the way. Has taken two teams deep into the playoffs while having a decent amount of postseason success. Took an expansion team to the conference championship game in just it's second season while building that same team into a year-in, year-out contender in it's first five seasons in existence. Has now taken the Giants to the Super Bowl after four years as the head coach, while having a .500 or better record in the last three seasons.
Arguments against: His micromanaging and authoritarian style led to disenfranchisement among players and (partially, at least) contributed to second half collapses in several of those seasons.
Dungy
Arguments for: Super Bowl with Indy. Made a historically inept team into a contender.
Arguments against: For a man with a defensive pedigree, his years in Indy have been devoid of a good defense (save for this season, complete with a collapse in the playoffs). Has won because of an offense that was almost entirely in place before his arrival. Failed to do in Tampa Bay what Gruden did in just a year. Decisions to rest starters before playoffs has contributed to many a one-and-done.
Holmgren
For: Super Bowl win while fielding one of the best teams of the last two decades. Three Super Bowl appearances (with two different teams). Fields competitive teams almost annually. "Developed" one of the great QBs of all time and a good QB in Brett Favre.
Just playing. Has just two
sub 9 win teams in sixteen years as a head coach (!).
Against: Poor situational management. While being "contenders" every year, his Seahawks have benefited from playing in one of the worst divisions in the lesser conference for the last several years.
I don't think anyone else really merits much mention with this group, but there are some that have been pretty good (McCarthy has done well in his first two seasons, Lovie Smith is a good coach for the most part, Romeo did well this season), but, IMO, Mike Tomlin (or any of the rookie head coaches) has no business being mentioned in this discussion (I even lump McCarthy and Crennel in with this bunch, really). One season is simply not enough time to make a knowledgeable judgment (need I say any more than "Eric Mangini"?).
I completely forgot to mention Shanahan, here. I'd bunch him in with the top group, but I'm too lazy at the moment to break it down.
