Most of the teams I've seen have been running an offense heavy on either the pass or the run, so people have gotten used to game planning accordingly. Against passing formation you throw extra DBs on the field and cover medium-long. Against run formations you stack the box and don't think about the pass. When you combine this to a heavy targeting of RBs in the default formations/gameplans I can see how it would skew the statistics. In real life screen passes work best when you get the defense to bite on the run. In 3.0, what we seem to be getting is a crazy high amount of screens coming on run formation pass plays. Since the defense is just bum rushing the back field the QB connects with the RB who just slips out to the side with a couple blockers and it's off to the races.
On the flip side, against pass heavy offenses the defense seems to be game planned into an almost 4 quarter prevent defense. Some poor ILB is probably the only one left with a chance to cover and tackle an outlet pass to the RB. Generally, in real football, that match-up will benefit the RB every time. I'm very interested in seeing what the effect of balancing out the extremes of defensive play calling would have, as well as normalizing offensive defaults (defensive formations default to covering med/long across the board) would be.
As a side note: I feel like now would be a good time to question the "Hands" rating given to most running backs. The past few seasons, I see mid-class running backs with better WR stats than the top receivers in the class. If catching a football routinely isn't a universal skill at the NFL level, I have to question the fact that it seems universal at D-III college. Tweaking that to make a good hands rating less common could help solve this issue.