There's an interesting development coming out of the Philadelphia camp. Perhaps it's nothing more than reading too much into it -- after all, I REALLY really want Chad Johnson to be somewhere else where he'll sulk because of a single boo-bird from section 325. But Bleeding Green Nation took out a blurb from a recent John Clayton post regarding teams in the running for a veteran wide receiver expressing interest in -- again, and say it with me, if... there's... a... trade -- Chad Johnson by the Cowboys (we've know that for a long time), Raiders and Eagles. The Raiders seem unlikely because of their spree this free agency that included (but far limited to) a maddening $55 million deal for B-rated (by way of injury) wide receiver Javon Walker with $16.6 million in guaranteed money. It would seem unlikely that the trade would happen without a new deal for Chad Johnson.

And it would seem that Lee Evans, another potential wide receiver that could shift teams, is under negotiations to extend his contract with the Bills. He has an "out" option after 2009, which Brian rightly concludes, he'd likely take.

The Pro Football Talk guys wrote the headline Eagles to make a Major Move at Receiver referencing an Eagles blog called GCobb.com. I have to admit, I spit out my Hawaiian Punch. The web site merely mentions a possible trade with the Lions for Roy Williams even though Clayton expressed in the above link that he, along with Johnson and Evans, are not being shopped. Right. Because all NFL teams are soooooo honest. Blah, blah, blah.

But when I saw that the Eagles were looking at Roy Williams, I was a bit taken aback. Not because it wasn't Chad, but because I just don't think this would be that major. Chad would be major. Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss would be major. A one-time Pro Bowl receiver, while decent enough for front page Sports news, wouldn't be so major. Perhaps to Eagles fans. So I'll reserve my classification of "major".

Again, take all that for what it is. More NFL off-season blodder (my word) that could go either way. Johnson was only referenced as an assumption with no known source claiming anything. Still, it did spark my interest.