Light Analysis of Brandon Jacobs' BS

Here's what Jacobs said:

“Going somewhere where they don’t have route conversions into certain coverages was just absurd,” said Jacobs, who played nine NFL seasons. “They’re just running routes in the defense, getting people killed. Size and strength is what they had, and that’s why they won. Let’s be real. They had great assistant coaches, but Jim didn’t know what he was doing. Jim had no idea. Jim is throwing slants into Cover-2 safeties, getting people hurt. That guy knew nothing, man.

So Jacobs is salty that much is obvious, but just to explain a bit what he's talking about, Jacobs is saying Harbaugh wasn't using run-n-shoot/air raid offense. If Jacobs had been more around the league he'd realize that's normal: most of the NFL, Harbaugh included, base their passing offenses on West Coast principles. It's likely Peters never really learned the heart of the playbook in San Fran, just downloaded the plays. Nobody runs just one or the other, but West Coast routes are simpler and more precise. You run the route you're given, with lookbacks and some room for finding space, but the idea is to be where you're supposed to be when the quarterback gets to your place in the progression.

Run 'n Shoot is about route trees, or "route conversions" as Jacobs is calling them. This is reactionary, for example if the guy covering you is setting up inside you go outside, if he stays over you, you cut off, yada yada. The QB is reading the same defenders as you, and will often throw it before you break, expecting you the receiver to see it and break that way. The Air Raid doesn't run a ton of slants. Usually they've got their best guy running a route tree, their next best guy running a backside post, and then two guys running "MESH" which means they're running crossing routes down low to occupy the LBs and provide an easy outlet.

Slants is a typical play to run against Cover 2, which is a typical coverage. I doubt he's really saying "don't throw slants into Cover 2" because without looking I already know I can find tons of examples of the Giants throwing slants into Cover 2. People do that all the time. It's a very common quick pass that beats most coverages and creates an easy high-low read against the most common one, i.e. Cover 2:

Throwing them at "Cover-2 safeties" means something a little different perhaps. Cover 1/Cover 3 safeties are going to be lighter guys, and different guys. The strong safety in Cov 1 is sort of a nickelback. The free safety is super super super super fast so he can cover a ton of ground and make plays on the ball.

Cover 2 safeties are thicker, meatier. They have easier coverage jobs, covering half the field, but are more involved in the edge of the run game. Iowa's safeties are Cover 2 safeties. I think what Jacobs is saying is when the defense has an Iowa-like safety out there--a dude who can come up and hit you but might not be able to cover your slot receiver down the field, you shouldn't be trying to run slants under him--you should be running verts to either side of him or whatever.

That's my best shot at what he's thinking. It's hard to tell because otherwise it doesn't make much sense why a guy who played football wouldn't know you run slants on cover 2. That's like saying a blogger doesn't know what he's doing because he uses graphcis in his posts. Okay, maybe if I put together a video that would be more instructive, but, like, graphics are low rent and stuff, man, and we've got a big site to write here.