Sunday, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that Cincinnati had discussed the possibility of pursuing Denver restricted free agent receiver Brandon Marshall.



The team probably won’t consider that option any longer. The Bengals just signed free agent receiver Antonio Bryant. The Bengals are likely no longer in the market for a receiver. The Bengals were also considering receiver Terrell Owens. He will likely not sign with the Bengals.



So far, only Seattle has visited with Marshall. Teams such as Miami, New England and the Jets could eventually show interest in Marshall. It would behoove Denver if there is more interest. That would drive up the price tag. The Broncos want a first-round pick for Marshall.



However, Seattle likely will be reluctant to send one of its two first-round picks to Denver for Marshall. The fact that Cincinnati is probably out of the Marshall mix won’t increase Seattle’s offer.

Despite various pleads from Pro Bowl receiver Chad Ochocinco, the Cincinnati Bengals went against his advice.



Cincinnati passed over Terrell Owens and signed free agent receiver Antonio Bryant Wednesday to a four-year contract. According to ESPN.com senior writer John Clayton, the deal is worth $28 million, which is very similar to the numbers the Bengals gave Laveranues Coles last season.



Meanwhile, barring an unforeseen spending spree, Owens is out in Cincinnati. It has been speculated for weeks that the Bengals were interested and things reached a climax during this week’s visit. Ochocinco also put on a full-fledged recruiting campaign for the Bengals to sign his good friend, but Bengals management didn’t take the bait.



Bryant, who turned 29 this week, is seven years younger than Owens and an upgrade over Coles as a No. 2 receiver. Cincinnati now needs to add a play-making tight end and some help on the offensive line for quarterback Carson Palmer. With Cedric Benson running the ball and Ochocinco and Bryant at receiver, this unit should be more balanced next season.

Each Wednesday leading up to the NFL draft (April 22-24), the ESPN.com blog network will take a division-by-division look at key aspects of the draft. Today’s topic: recent history.



Baltimore Ravens



With a consistently great defense in place, the Ravens have put a lot of effort recently into improving their offense. Offensive tackle Michael Oher (2009), quarterback Joe Flacco (2008) and guard Ben Grubbs (2007) — all starters — were Baltimore’s past three first-round picks. The Ravens also had major success with former second-round pick Ray Rice and former fourth-round pick Le’Ron McClain. Both running backs made the Pro Bowl this past season. Expect Baltimore to continue to search for more offense high in the draft this year, as the team attempts to take its passing game to the next level.



Cincinnati Bengals



The reigning AFC North champs helped build their defense through the draft the past three years and will now focus on improving the offense. Recent draftees such as cornerback Leon Hall (2007) and linebackers Keith Rivers (2008) and Rey Maualuga (2009) are starters for Cincinnati’s defense. If the team has similar success on offense this year, the Bengals will be in good shape. Cincinnati currently needs help at tight end, receiver and guard. The Bengals may patch some of those holes in free agency. For example, receiver Terrell Owens is visiting Cincinnati Wednesday. But it will be important to fill any remaining offensive holes in this year’s draft.



Cleveland Browns



This is the third regime drafting for Cleveland in three years. Former general manager Phil Savage was fired after the 2008 season. Former general manager George Kokinis followed but was fired in 2009, paving the way for new president Mike Holmgren and GM Tom Heckert. A major reason the Browns are in the basement in the AFC North is their inability to draft impact players. Only five players selected in the past three drafts are steady starters, and only one (Joe Thomas) has made the Pro Bowl. With the No. 7 overall pick and 11 total picks, Holmgren needs to find impact players who can help erase the talent gap and turn around the Browns.



Pittsburgh Steelers



The Steelers are a veteran-laden team, so most of their picks the past three years have provided a delayed impact. Recent high picks such as Lawrence Timmons, LaMarr Woodley and Rashard Mendenhall all had to wait at least one year before getting their turn to be productive. Receiver Mike Wallace, last year’s third-round pick, was a rare exception. Pittsburgh president Art Rooney II recently said it’s vital for the team to develop its younger players more quickly. After missing the playoffs, the Steelers have a relatively high pick at No. 18. That player could turn out to be a rookie starter, particularly if the pick addresses the cornerback position or the offensive line.

A coin toss is no way to settle any NFL game, let alone a classic playoff battle or, worse, the Super Bowl.



ESPN’s John Clayton and I can agree on that.



The prospect of Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or any elite quarterback never touching the football during overtime keeps league executives awake at night, or at least during meetings of the competition committee. There’s a decent chance those meetings will produce changes to overtime rules for the playoffs, a subject Clayton and I will try to resolve in regulation.



Mike Sando: Greetings, professor, and welcome to the NFC West blog. Aren’t you on the competition committee?



John Clayton: Not quite, Mike, but if I were, I’d be inclined to vote for change. The current overtime rules are fine for the regular season. Why have a cheap overtime victory in the playoffs?



MS: This might be a good time to formally introduce the proposed rules change. Both teams would get at least one possession in overtime unless one team scored a touchdown on the first possession. This would prevent a team from moving quickly into range for the winning field goal before the other team had a chance to get its offense on the field. And I get that part of it. No one wants to see kickers trump quarterbacks. But let’s also not forget about the first four quarters. Both quarterbacks have plenty of chances to win games during regulation. Let’s not tinker with rules lightly.



JC: What I like is it’s only going to be in the playoffs. Since 2002, there have been five times in the playoffs in which a quarterback turned the overtime coin toss into a victory. Quarterbacks are getting very good at taking drives down the field in two-minute situations. It’s becoming more frequent. It happened only once from 1958 until 2002.



MS: Right, but the new rule wouldn’t have affected all of those games. Peyton Manning never touched the football in overtime of the Colts’ wild-card playoff defeat at San Diego a year ago. His team scored 17 points in regulation, took a knee on the final play and then watched San Diego put together a 10-play, 75-yard drive to the winning touchdown. The right team won that game and the right team wins most of them. I can’t remember feeling shortchanged after watching a kicker win a playoff game in overtime. I’m also not a big fan of having different rules for the playoffs. Football should be football, right?



JC: Sudden death would turn into sudden deferral if the league applied this proposed rule to the regular season. At least in playoff games, you’re always trying to win.



MS: We’ve gone from 15 ties per season from 1962 to 1973 to less than one tie per season over the last 36. That’s a good thing.



JC: The current rule was put together in 1974 to stop ties, and it worked. That is the function of these rules. It minimizes the chance for ties. At least when you get into the playoffs, there are no ties. They will play until somebody scores. And then it starts to make sense to take advantage of a chance to have a second possession, the chance to neutralize a field goal. Why have a cheap overtime victory in the playoffs as opposed to one where you earn it? In the regular season, if you go to a mandatory two possessions in OT, now all of a sudden you’re eating 8 minutes off the clock and there’s a better chance for a tie because there’s no second OT.



MS: I’m not feeling much urgency on this one. There’s too much emphasis on everything having to be perfectly fair. The current rules aren’t perfect, but this is football, not the legal system. I didn’t have a problem with Brett Favre never touching the ball in overtime against the Saints in the NFC Championship Game. The Vikings botched the end of regulation and deserved to lose and we all know what happened the last time Favre had possession in a playoff game. He threw it to the other team.



Winning or losing by a field goal is part of football. There’s nothing cheap about a kicker coming through in the clutch and getting mobbed by his teammates. Those kicks aren’t gimmes under pressure, as kickers demonstrated last postseason. They’re dramatic precisely because the game’s outcome hangs in the balance. I also think it’s vital for the league to consider unintended consequences for any rule change. More on that in a bit. Before we go any further, what are the odds of this rules change even passing when owners get together in Orlando for their spring meetings later this month?



JC: I would give it only about a 45 percent chance even though it’s a good proposal. The main problem for passage is that there are a lot of traditionalists in the NFL — the Bidwills in Arizona, Mike Brown in Cincinnati. They are typically going to say no because they don’t like change. There has always been a block that was against replay and a block against rules such as this one. But that 45 percent chance is the best chance for an overtime rules change in many years.



MS: Let’s say the new rule passes and the allegedly great threat of cheap overtime field goals in the postseason is ended. The final minutes of regulation in a tie game might feel a little different. I wonder if teams might be more inclined to play for overtime, perhaps lowering the stakes in regulation. We should also consider how games might change after one team scores a field goal on the first possession of overtime. The second team would never punt, but there might be less drama in the knowledge that an answering field goal would buy additional time.



JC: As you know, Mike, I think one of the great parts of the game now is how the elite quarterbacks work the two-minute offense. The beauty of this rule change is that I don’t think it’s going to change it too much. Because of the possibility of a team losing the coin toss and giving up a touchdown drive that might lose the game, I think the quarterbacks will still drive for the winning score in regulation rather than just settle for overtime. That would be different in the regular season. Teams without elite quarterbacks would turn defensive and just settle for the overtime game. In the playoffs nowadays, you have to have an elite quarterback. You’re only talking about one or two playoff games a year in overtime. I’m not concerned as much about watching the punter. I’m concerned about seeing the elite quarterback. This rule change should pass because it doesn’t dampen the excitement of a playoff game. That might happen if you just go to the two-possession rule. The touchdown factor for the first possession puts this one over the top.



MS: We’re out of time, which can only mean one thing. Let’s flip a coin and settle this thing. Where’s Phil Luckett when you need him?

A new Tuesday feature on the ESPN.com NFL blog network.



Will Denver receiver Brandon Marshall be in a different uniform in 2010?



This is the burning question in the AFC West.



And I believe the answer is yes. I just don’t see any way Marshall will return to Denver.



I know all parties have said a Marshall return to Denver is possible. I know there have been reports that the Broncos want a first-round pick for Marshall or they won’t let him go. Remember, Jay Cutler wasn’t going to be traded, either.



I think, ultimately, Denver would change its stance if an attractive offer is made. For example, if Denver is offered a second-round pick and a player for Marshall, the Broncos may think that is worth it. In the end, Denver will want value for Marshall.



If he were to stay in Denver in 2010, Marshall would be set to become a free agent in 2011, assuming there will be football played that season. Marshall would surely leave Denver next year unless he got a new, huge contract.



I know the Broncos are reluctant to commit to Marshall long-term because of his off-field problems. Also, Denver was fed up with Marshall after a turbulent 2009 season that featured a trade demand, a summer suspension and a benching in the final game of the season.



Denver has to be ready to move on. So I don’t expect this first-round demand to be a deal-breaker.



Seattle is the only team to show interest in Marshall so far. It has visited with Marshall, but the Seahawks aren’t expected to offer one of their two first-round picks for the receiver. Still, expect Seattle to get creative with its offer if it decides to make a pitch for Marshall. Denver’s best hope for a first-round pick is if there is a bidding war for Marshall.



ESPN’s Adam Schefter has reported that Cincinnati could make a play for Marshall. Other teams such as Miami, New England and the Jets could potentially get involved. More interest could mean higher compensation.



If that’s the case, perhaps the Broncos will get that first-round pick. But in the end, expect Marshall to leave Denver, first-round pick or not.

Monday could go down as one of the busiest offseason ays in the AFC North.



Two developments Monday night include include receiver Terrell Owens planning a visit with the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns trading for Seattle’s Seneca Wallace. Both reports are via ESPN’s Adam Schefter.



Wallace will rejoin Cleveland president Mike Holmgren, the former coach of the Seahawks. The Browns have been searching for help at quarterback and Wallace was the first move. The team mostly likely will release Derek Anderson before his $2 million roster bonus is due March 19.



What this means for Cleveland’s quarterback situation is uncertain. Wallace has been a backup for most of his career, and the team has yet to publicly endorse Brady Quinn. This situation remains fluid, so stay tuned.



Cincinnati’s visit with Owens Tuesday will be important, as the team will get a feel of whether he fits with the Bengals. Owens is good friends with Bengals Pro Bowl receiver Chad Ochocinco, who has been lobbying for the team to sign T.O.

The Cincinnati Bengals retained free agent defensive tackle Tank Johnson on Monday. According to ESPN’s John Clayton, Johnson agreed to a four-year contract.



Johnson started 13 games for Cincinnati last season and recorded 29 tackles and two sacks. He helped turn the Bengals’ defense into one of the top units in the NFL last season.



The Bengals were the last AFC North team to make a signing or trade since the free-agent period began last Friday, but they likely aren’t done. Cincinnati also has been linked with several big-name receivers recently, including Antonio Bryant, Terrell Owens and Brandon Marshall.

Despite spending his entire career with the Arizona Cardinals, new Baltimore Ravens receiver Anquan Boldin is not a stranger to the AFC North.



According to ESPN Stats & Information, Boldin played six career games against his new division rivals — the Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers. Currently the Browns and Steelers both lack quality depth at cornerback, although the draft and free agency could change that.



Paired with former teammate Larry Fitzgerald, Boldin was the second option in Arizona’s offense, but could have more balls thrown his way next season as the top option for Baltimore and quarterback Joe Flacco. This also means Boldin will face more No. 1 cornerbacks in the AFC North like Pittsburgh’s Ike Taylor and Cincinnati’s Johnathan Joseph.



Last season, Boldin caught 84 receptions for 1,024 yards and four touchdowns with the Cardinals. It was the fifth time Boldin eclipsed the 1,000-yard mark in his career.

Will the Cincinnati Bengals shock the NFL and pull off a blockbuster trade to acquire receiver Brandon Marshall from the Denver Broncos?



The short answer: Probably not.



There have been mixed reports about Cincinnati’s plans to acquire a receiver. Names such as Terrell Owens, Kevin Walter and Marshall have all been talked about, and so far nothing has come to fruition.



According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, the Bengals are contemplating a play for Marshall, who visited this weekend with the Seattle Seahawks. But thinking about a player and actually making a trade are two vastly different things.



Considering Cincinnati’s history, giving up its first-round pick and signing Marshall to a contract extension that, at the very least, would start in the range of $30-40 million would be completely out of character for the Bengals.



Cincinnati has expressed some level of interest in free-agent receiver Owens, who can sign at a much cheaper rate and the team would still retain its first-round pick to address other needs.



Although that move isn’t a slam dunk, either, it’s still more likely T.O. or some other free-agent receiver wears Bengals stripes next year than Marshall.

Are the Seattle Seahawks getting competition for Brandon Marshall?



ESPN’s Adam Schefter is reporting Cincinnati is considering making a move on Marshall. The Pro Bowl receiver has been visiting with Seattle this weekend.



The Broncos put the first-round tender on Marshall. If the Bengals are going to be in play with Marshall, they may want to act quickly. Seattle could expedite the process.



If Cincinnati, which has the No. 21 pick in the first round, does pursue Marshall, it will give Denver some leverage and could result in a bidding war between Seattle and Cincinnati.