Mothman wrote:
Sure, but the more he's targeted the more it underlines that ineffectiveness. That's why I mentioned the targets.

I'm not disagreeing with you, exactly (well, OK - I am disagreeing on this point

)
I'm asking what has made him "worse" this year than last. Position switch? Got it. Certainly could account for some of his struggles. Being targeted more? Was he giving up 90% of his plays last year? I'm using 90% because it's easier math to make my point. He may have been targeted less, but his percentage would (ostensibly) be the same if his performance was similar. IOW if he was targeted 10 times all last year, he would be expected to give up 9 passes. If he's targeted 50 times this year (not yet, but by the end of the Giants game he will be) he would be expected to give up 45 passes. I understand your saying it
underlines (<-- is there such as thing as a formatting pun) his ineffectiveness, but that just means that it is highlighting it more. I think a 93% failure rate is evident enough without the need for it to be highlighted further.
I'm saying that being targeted more doesn't seem to be a valid reason to regress in performance. You appear to be offering a possibility that his performance regressed
because he is being targeted more (maybe I'm misinterpreting that). I'm saying that causal link is reversed. He's being targeted more because his performance has regressed.
Lastly, I think the position switch is a major factor in his "drop off." Maybe they really have no better alternative <cough>Xavier Rhodes<cough>, but after 6 weeks into the season, shouldn't the coaching staff be able to work with him to improve the 90% burn rate? Instead, it seems to be getting worse.