I keep hearing the term "outcoached" in player commentaries following NFL games.  It usually goes something like this:  "We lost the game because we were outplayed and outcoached."  Outplayed, yes.  Outcoached, meh.  It's an excuse.  It's coming from a player who doesn't agree with the decisions his coach made.  It doesn't mean he would've made better ones if he was given a chance.  It just means he thinks he could be a better coach.  While this sometimes appears to be a logical statement, it's not.  It's like claiming to know more than God.  "If I were God, I wouldn't have created saturated fat."  "If I were the coach, I would've passed more to T.O."  It's easy to claim to know more than the person in charge, but it's hard to prove and usually isn't true.  Plus, it's a subtle way of taking a jab at a specific person or group of people (of which the player is not a member).  If a player says, "We were outplayed," he's taking at least some of the blame himself.  The team could've done better.  The players could've played better.  The player is included in the group of players who could've played better.  But by saying, "We were outcoached," the player is blame-shifting and putting some of the pressure and criticism on the coaches.  It's unfair, it's stupid, and it makes the team look bad.  If a player wants to think that, let him think it.  But don't say it to the media. #sports