Sports Hernia":j6ovwwcg said:
Wow, that’s an odd stat. An Anomaly I’m sure.
I'm not so sure. As an :les: I remember an old stat they used to track regarding rushing yards (I'll get to passing yards directly). Back in the day, 15-20 years ago, the talking heads used to put up stats like "winning % when a team rushes for 100 yds" and such. The never really went into detail about how teams got to 100 yards, but they seemed to like it.
Now at the time, rushing for 100 yds was a 75% or more indicator of winning, particularly for the old Dallas teams that went to several SBs. Concurrently, the winning percentage for 300 yd passing games was more like 50%.
Now, in the modern game, 300 yard passing games are more prevalent and I'm sure the winning percentage is probably higher, though I can't really say so, I don't look at stats that deeply.
The point being, asking why they threw for 300+ yards had meaning. If they wre desperate and playing the whole game from behind, then yeah, they're gonna get more yards. If it was in the game plan, if they planned to throw for yards even when they were ahead in the score, it doesn't mean as much. Nowadays, I suspect 400 is the new 300, in that teams that throw that much are probably more in the desperation mode than the ball control mode.
In the end, burning up clock and shortening the game are easier in the running game than the passing game, where mistakes and/or good defensive plays can stop the clock.