Okay first, old man language rant.
The constructions "should of," "would of," and "could of" do not mean anything.
The holy trinity of regret you are looking for is "should have (should've)," "would have (would've)," and "could have (could've)." For obvious reasons, when run together, it's easiest to drop the fricative "v," yielding "shoulda, woulda, coulda."
So to reemphasize: "Should have" (not "should of"). "Would have" (not "would of.") "Could have" (not "could of.")
That's just the warmup, because this "should of" business makes my eyeballs burn.
Here is why I have no respect for "shoulda, woulda, coulda." Very often, it consists of merely naming one of the holy trinity, and following it with whichever tactic was not chosen. It's what we call a counterfactual, which is unproveable without a Rick and Morty portal gun, and then you end up having to bury your family in the back yard.
By slavishly following the counterfactual method, single posters have sometimes, in a single thread, bemoaned (for example) multiple consecutive running plays, and running plays mixed in with pass plays -- just as a general respose to the same situation. We should always go for it if we punted. We should always have punted if we went for it. Whichever we called was "terrible playcalling." Whichever we "should of" called was better.
The key is, it's an ex post facto judgement.
I'm fine with "they ought to run it here" (for example.) At least you're not shooting fish in a barrel. But here's the thing. What you have to do when they do the opposite of what you spout and it succeeds, is shut up about the terrible playcalling. Better yet you should say something like "wow. Look at that. it really did work that time."
You'd see a really different complexion to these arguments.
I wish I knew the media landscape up there. Someone should study it for the word "playcalling." You could go through a list of logical fallacies and populate it with examples sprouting from that one silly fetish, the quest to prove bad playcalling.
And shut uppppppp already with naming the baddie of the week who is implicated in the quest. To read this forum there hasn't been a competent OC in New England since Charlie Weiss, if then, a competent DC since Crennel, if then, or a competent head coach ever (for some posters).
I mean, an occasional "come on coach, call a running play there!" is fine. What we have is at least a half dozen such outbursts a game, sometimes systematically, after the fact, advising boards of what the alternative play "should of" been. "Another run there! What terrible playcalling. Steve Belichick should be fired. They should of passed." Every important play.
We get it. Any given play that does not succeed you could have run a different play. Check. Thanks for the frickin news flash, consider that message delivered, along with "terrible playcalling" and the name of the person you believe responsible.
Okay, that's done. Stipulated for next week, if they did something and it didn't work, and something else has a non-zero chance of working, that one exists in a magical state of always better than the tactic that didn't work.
Okay. Now what else ya got?