Well, how would you explain that the tracks become less deep and in the end only claw marks. You seem to consider it dubious to infer that the animal was bouyed up by water. Are you saying we should consider the hypothesis that it was wearing anti-gravity generators?
There are 1000's of possibilities. Science believes what it is suppose to believe based on it's years of ideas laid as a foundation.
Since you ask how the tracks might otherwise be explained, I will scratch my head and see if I can come up with some alternative explanation.
How about: Over 165 million year period, some degree of erosion occurred so that some footprints are less perfect than others?
I make no claim that this assertion is accurate or that the original claim could not be accurate. But scientists have gotten into the business of seeing half a footprint and coming up with multiple conclusions based upon it. And if anyone says "That's conjecture", then the scientists start jumping up and down shouting "No it isn't!"
No it was running from the water after land prey.
On land claw prints are an indication of a chase.
Just ask a hunter.