So what's your view of the reason behind all the passing yards?

[Ivan]

I think the reason for all the passing yards and the Patriots success is that they "are relying upon an aging quarterback." (Since I am not ESPN I will correctly attribute that quote to Ron Borges)

 

[Fencer]

Receivers are running precise routes, without defenses being allowed to do much to physically prevent them from doing so. That lets QBs reliably anticipate what the receivers will do.

The size and strength of the receivers (including the TEs) surely helps too. If a DB can't stop a pass without jumping BEFORE the receiver does, then the reaction time in which he responds to the receiver's move may be enough to take him out of the play.

The only way to reliably defend is to read what the offense will do before it does it, and you don't always win that one. (Perhaps, as the season progresses, you do win that one more often.)

 

[Synovia]

Scoring under 30 points in a game is seen as a failure.

.

Average per game scoring in the NFL basically hasn't changed at all in the last 40 years.

 

[shmessy]

shmessy

Again, what's the title of the post?

Why are YARDS up?

Ofcourse, scoring is up. That's what the NFL wants. Throw in the protection stuff for good measure.

YARDS gets highlighted because of fantasy football and Madden. Look at nfl.com. Columnists devoted to fantasy football. The league also wants fantasy stats at the games.

Yards AND scoring are up for the same reasons.

Could be Madden, could be fantasy or could be TV ad ratings (my hunch is all three, but mostly the latter).

I think the SCORING is more important to the league rather than the yards. The NFL would not be happy if teams put up a bazillion yards, but the games were 7-3.

Think about it for a second - - that is why soccer is such a TV bust in America.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

A lot of good and valid thoughts in this thread. I'd say it most has to do with,

1) This league favors passing/offense, both in rules and officiating. Unless a team is bad offensively, it's pretty much a given that they will move the ball between the 20's at will. Red zone gets harder and you have to play ball cuz the field is shorter and there is less room to take advantage of the current trend towards passing.

2) Shortened camp certainly appears to have had a bigger effect on defenses. A lot of bad D being played out there right now.

3) Bigger, stronger WR's are becoming the norm, and they are MUCH harder to defend, particularly with #1 above in play.

 

[Synovia]

The other drive that I would give SD completely no credit for, was the 4th down stop. Brady on 3rd and 4 quick-snapped and missed a wide-open Welker. They had SD completely unprepared and just blew the play. That was followed up by Branch getting absolutely mugged on 4th down, an absolute embarrassing non-call by the refs. .

And by "missed welker" you mean "the ball was batted by a defensive lineman and ended up behind welker" right. San Diego clearly deserves no credit for getting a hand on a quick snap pass.

 

[Fencer]

Unless a team is bad offensively, it's pretty much a given that they will move the ball between the 20's at will.

And that's a big part of the reason why BB goes for it on 4th down in controversial situations.

 

[coolguy]

LOL THE PATS DEFENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!....to some degree.

People always forget Jake delhomme threw for 323 yards and 3 tds/muhammand had 140 yards in sb38
people always forget kurt warner against the pats old jail ball defense had 365 yards
people always forget mcnabb threw for 357 and 3td/ T.O had 9 catches for 122 yards

The problem isn't the yards but how the pats d handles critical situations.

 

[Fencer]

LOL THE PATS DEFENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!....to some degree.

People always forget Jake delhomme threw for 323 yards and 3 tds/muhammand had 140 yards in sb38
people always forget kurt warner against the pats old jail ball defense had 365 yards
people always forget mcnabb threw for 357 and 3td/ T.O had 9 catches for 122 yards

The problem isn't the yards but how the pats d handles critical situations.

Yes, but those felt more like "Oh, THAT'S why that team made it to the Super Bowl" kinds of situations.

Well, not the Warner one; the Pats' defense was a bit patchwork that year.

 

[lamafist]

League-wide, SCORING is up also - - that's my point. It's not just meaningless yardage without points. Argue whether points is meaningless - - go ahead - - but the yardage IS resulting in higher point totals. And scoring at a greater year-to-year rate of growth than we've seen in at least 6 years:

2011 After 2 weeks = 23.52 +6.4%

2010 = 22.1 +3.3%
2009 = 21.4 -2.3%
2008 = 21.9 +0.9%
2007 = 21.7 +4.8%
2006 = 20.7 +0.5%
2005 = 20.6

So these 'meaningless' yards ARE resulting in more points. Now, a better discussion would be the relative cheapening of points over the years.

Where'd you get your numbers, Schmessy? The ones I see at Pro-Football-Reference are a little different.

Anyway, I think it makes sense to go back a bit further to examine a hypothetical trend toward increased scoring, what with 2004 representing the year in which the biggest offense-favoring rules "emphasis" was put in place. Looking at the 7 full seasons since the defensive-holding emphasis, and the 7 full seasons before it, we see:


2010 = 22.0
2009 = 21.5
2008 = 22.0
2007 = 21.7
2006 = 20.7
2005 = 20.6
2004 = 21.5
--------------
Avg. = 21.4

2003 = 20.8
2002 = 21.7
2001 = 20.2
2000 = 20.7
1999 = 20.8
1998 = 21.3
1997 = 20.7
--------------
Avg. = 20.9

That's a 0.53 pt per game difference, a 2.4% gain that's right around the year-to-year standard deviation. I'm not so sure that constitutes a significant enough gain to compel seeking an explanation outside normal variance.

As for this season -- it's only 2 weeks, and besides, wouldn't one expect scoring to be higher earlier in the season, before weather becomes a factor?