An interesting observation made in a recent Chick Ludwig piece suggests that the Bengals might be shifting their offense to a spread-like offense (while Palmer remains under center instead of shotgun) to help open up the running game.

Lewis' hope is that, by spreading the field with three and four wide receivers, running lanes will be created for tailbacks Rudi Johnson, Kenny Watson, Chris Perry and DeDe Dorsey; and maybe, just maybe, Seattle Seahawks' career rushing leader Shaun Alexander

Andre Caldwell came from a similar, multiple wide receiver formation at Florida. In 2005, the Bengals had a great system of three tremendously talented wide receivers, the peak of Rudi Johnson's effectiveness, a receiver type back out of the backfield in Chris Perry and a talented offensive line that's since seen Eric Steinbach and Rich Braham leave.

Assuming that all three drafted receivers sign, the Bengals wide receiver roster looks like this (in no particular order):

• Chad Johnson
• T.J. Houshmandzadeh
• Doug Gabriel
• Andre Caldwell
• Jerome Simpson
• Glenn Holt
• Marcus Maxwell
• Antonio Chatman
• Mario Urrutia

Assuming that the team takes six receivers -- and assuming that the team will have Johnson (assuming he doesn't sit out and not traded), Houshmandzadeh, Simpson and Caldwell -- which two receivers would the team keep? Your choices are:

Gabriel
Holt
Maxwell
Chatman
Urrutia

Oil Slick made an appearance on ESPN.com's draft coverage saying that the Cincinnati Bengals have had at least one firm trade offer of two first-round picks. Not a conditional third, but a second first-round pick. So that covers one of three prerequisites given to us by Merrill Hoge earlier. The second is that the Bengals would like an established player. The third?

This is what I believe is the main hurdle for Oil Slick and Prima Donna Johnson. The Bengals want $5 million already paid to Prima Donna Johnson that was freely handed to him when he signed his -- how did Oil Slick put it two years ago, ground breaking? -- contract. While I think the "we won't trade Chad because he's under contract" is an inspiring position for fans tired of players consistently begging for trades, this really seems like a counter-demand that Mike Brown would make. If you're going to sign a contract, even though a ton of your money is given up front, you will earn that money even though you already have it. Otherwise, sit and retire.

But with this information coming out this morning/afternoon, it would seem like a trade is becoming even less likely that the demands are becoming so public -- and free flowing. Though who knows? We do know that the NFL Draft is still 90 minutes away and four teams have reportedly already made their selections. Funny.

During ESPN's Draft telecast, Merrill Hoge explained the Bengals demands for Chad Johnson -- something we haven't heard yet. If you want Chad Johnson, you'll have to give up two first-round picks (none of this conditional crap), an established player (offense or defense we're assuming) and $5 million back from Johnson's signing bonus that's already paid.

In other words, they'll trade him. But the demands might itself prove as a deterrent from teams looking to trade with him. The PFT guys also provide sound reasoning when it comes to the "dead money" folly that Cincinnati beat writers continue to pound into us. There is actually SEVERAL options that the Bengals can do to get around the dead money excuse.

Just a real quick amendment regarding the refused trade between the Bengals and the Redskins for Chad Johnson. For sure, the Bengals would have received a first-round pick in 2008. The conditional third-round pick was based on receptions by Chad Johnson during the 2008 campaign. If he caught 80 passes, the Bengals would have received a second-round pick. If Johnson caught 95 passes, the Bengals were awarded a first-round. Not that it really matters, but a little knowledge never hurt no one.

Chris Henry begged -- or is it bugged -- the judge during an April 22 hearing to allow him more "freedom" while waiting a trial on assault charges. Another hearing is scheduled for May 6. Not that it really matters since he's not a Bengals player anymore -- oh, how nice am I? (note: this is how bad Cincinnati.com's search engine is. I did a search on Chris Henry and it came back without any results)

Chad Johnson is, well, if you read this blog, you're well up to date on that. Wait, today is Friday. You're NOT up to date. Well, let's remedy that, shall we?

First, this excerpt on Lance's blog.

This isn't the first time we've heard this. Even T.J. Houshmandzadeh's name has been dragged into it. Remember this story?

We should admit, we're not sure if the Glazier comment is about the same thing. It might be, it might not be. But from that December, 2007, post, it would appear that Lewis was already in a downfall of "losing the locker room". However, for his part, Marvin Lewis has won back the locker room -- which he apparently lost because of Chad Johnson anyway. I love full circle stories, don't you?

Now Oil Slick is pleading like a weasel amongst tigers.

Is this Chad's version of "next question"? If so, we're disappointed. We expected so much more than this. Oil Slick pleads that the Bengals have a "king's ransom" with two first round picks that have been reported in the media -- which isn't true. The Bengals were offered one first-round pick in 2008 and a conditional 2009 third-round pick that could have upgraded to a first. As our boy Beerrun says, give me two first round picks for 2008 and 2009, then we'll talk.

"Bengals, if you're listening to me, please trade Chad."

Oil Slick is begging, man. He's BEGGING. On your knees, boy. I guess he's feeling the pressure of having a huge chunk of, at least, $21 million of Chad's guaranteed money -- to start -- is weighing him down. We all know that Mike Brown and company are making a point here. One that's becoming supported, not only from Bengals fans (who'd also be just as happy waving goodbye), but even NFL fans are getting a thrill watching Oil Slick beg and Chad squirm. No, keeping Chad doesn't doesn't help this team. Not one bit. Still, if the team sticks to their guns, watching this episode will keep high entertainment value -- provided Oil Slick begs and Chad squirms. That stuff right there just makes my day.

It's not that I disrespect Geoff Hobson, but there are times that I think he misses points -- or becomes oblivious to the team's bottom line -- make the team and ownership look good. For example, in his latest mailbag, Hobson is adamant that the Bengals keep Chad Johnson... and that they should.

Reggie Nelson is with the Jacksonville Jaguars, not in the NFL draft. Then this blurb from the Pro Football Talk guys.

Granted. Most people, even myself to some degree, think that once the paychecks appear, then Chad will return. But nothing is guaranteed with this entire episode. Will he played, won't he play. Will he pout, or just play. Will he play, or simply go through the motions.

If you have a Pro Bowl wide receiver that's potentially a Hall of Famer (like Corey Dillon) that sits out, you're missing his roster spot and whatever return the draft pick could have provided. You also miss the obvious distractions if Chad Johnson sits out -- the funny-ass SportsCenter interviews, the soon-to-be drive way interview, etc... I'm sorry, but if he does sit out, after each loss, the question about Chad Johnson will be asked to Lewis and Palmer (unfairly). You know it. And it will come from the same people that currently pen their support for keeping him, rather than trading him when the chance was presented. Now the question is that if every NFL team knows that the Bengals won't even listen to offers, will anymore show up when the team decides to move him?

Wouldn't you take a seventh round pick expecting T.J. Houshmandzadeh? Would you use the same comparisons when Palmer was picked #1 in the 2003 NFL draft while David Carr was first the year before? The only justified comparison from year to year, is predicting contracts based on slots. Not the actual players and their rookie season performances. That would be, what's the word, unproven?

When the Bengals traded Corey Dillon for the #56 pick in the 2004 NFL Draft, the team received unproven Madieu Williams. Even Hobson wrote at the time:

So the bigger risk is whether you keep Chad and he sits, using up a roster spot and losing your opportunity at the best deal that could have already passed by, or you dump the trash and risk the unprovens. Speaking of Fulcher, he had this to say about Chad:

Distraction. Distraction. Distraction. Rather than moaning Chad's attitude through the season, why not let a new kid become acquainted with the NFL while using the 2009 pick as another "need" filler.

Santana Moss. I'm always told that people are always replaceable. I'm not sure how Chad became an exception that rule. Before he came to Cincinnati, the Mike Brown era Bengals have stunk. When he came to Cincinnati, they continued to stink. During his career here, other than the glorious 2005 season and the half-time locker room "incident", the Bengals have been mediocre at best. So don't replace Chad. Remain status quo. Then complain three months into the season about the Bengals not listening (at least!) to trade offers.

I get both sides of the argument. I do. My school of thought, which could be different than yours (and that's fine), is that there is no chance that this team benefits with Chad in 2008. None. There's too many bridges that need mending really soon, or it won't happen at all. And the main point isn't the draft picks, but the problem within the locker room. Hopefully if Chad comes back, then all that can be put aside. But I'm not that optimistic.

CincyJungle made an upgrade. Read this first to get acquired to the site (like obtaining your old usernames).

Teams looking to acquire disgruntled wide receivers enters day #1,673. Since the Bengals have no interest dealing Chad Johnson (which we'll get to below), teams most interested in acquiring a veteran wide receiver are going to their next option -- after Larry Fitzgerald, Chad Johnson and Lee Evans were unshoppable (my word) -- Anquan Boldin. Doing their best Marvin Lewis impression (except for the lying and then admission), they're quick to respond: "NO!"

Apparently Oil Slick (Johnson's agent) and the Redskins came to an agreement either before, or at the exact moment, that the trade offer was made -- which we're not exactly sure when. The Redskins offered Johnson $21 million in guarantee money while offering the Bengals their 21st overall pick in 2008 and a conditional third-round pick in 2009.

Here's some points that people are making.

1. If the Bengals can't trade Johnson because of an $8 million cap hit, then wouldn't the Bengals be in further cap troubles with a first-round pick drafted a the 21st slot?
   Well, yea. Last year the Jacksonville Jaguars signed Reggie Nelson (the 21st pick) to a five-year deal worth $7.1 million in guarantee money. I admit, I'm no capologist. This site claims the first year, Nelson's cap hit was estimated at $1.9 million the first year. The number nine pick -- the Bengals slot this year -- Ted Ginn Jr. signed a five-year deal with $14.1 million guaranteed. That should work out to just under $3 million against the cap -- if my logic is correct. So based on those very loose assumptions, the Bengals would be roughly $13 million against the cap for two first-round draft picks and Chad Johnson's departure. Now add the $7.45 million for Stacy Andrews' franchise tag and that number hits $20 million. Obviously, this is a tall number for four transactions. So what are the team's options?
   
   Being creative and proactive isn't a word avoided like the Salem Which Hunt trials.
   
   A trade for 2009 picks rather than 2008. I don't think the Bengals will have improved success from 2007 -- meaning I don't see them playing better than 8-8 or 9-7 as is. Spread the hit through two seasons via June 1st cut. If allowed, work with Chad about restructuring the contract to lower the cap number with Cincinnati then instantly ship him to Washington before the ink dries so he can sign his Washington deal. Get Stacy Andrews signed to a long-term deal, redo Carson Palmer's contract and sign T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a long-term deal that's cap friendly early -- I've seen it done, so it can happen. All you have to do is be creative and hope that the players understand the situation and work with you to resolve it.
   
   
2. The only way the Bengals can succeed in 2008 is with Chad.
   I find this argument incredibly faulty and presumptuous. Consider that the Bengals, as a whole, with Chad Johnson, have one winning season and one playoff game under their belts. With or without Chad, the team has a losing record when you scratch the 2005 season. The Bengals need Chad Johnson like they needed Corey Dillon -- a great talent, but not the team's sole contributor. Other teams use wide receivers wisely enough that players less talented perform to achieve their ends. Secondly, we have to be concerned on how Chad will be received in the locker room come week #1. Just because he has the talent to achieve great performances, doesn't translate to a team's success. It never does. If keeping Chad means a fractured locker room, then keeping Chad provides little, if any, benefit to the team's overall success. Even Palmer is deflated: "I've moved on and I'm over it. I'm not really going to comment on it much more." If trading Chad helps the team, then why not at least explore the question rather than jumping down everyone's throats about a report that you had to later confirm, via press release, that it was written as true?

I realize I'm beating Barbaro and I apologize for that. Both player and team is frustrating as hell -- Chad for being the prick (at least a sheep to Oil Slick), the team for being stubborn.