Detroit traded veteran quarterback Greg Landry for three…
Detroit traded veteran quarterback Greg Landry for three draft choices: a 1979 fourth, a 1979 fifth and a 1980 third. The most useful return became tight end Ulysses Norris, who spent five seasons with the Lions and eventually started 15 games in 1983. The package produced roster value, but not enough star power to create a clear win.
Detroit Lions Received
- pick 1979 fourth round pick (#88-Ulysses Norris)
- pick 1979 fifth round pick (#131-Walt Brown)
- pick 1980 third round pick (#62-Mike Friede)
Indianapolis Colts Received
- player Greg Landry
Trade Analysis
Detroit moved on from a longtime starting quarterback and collected three mid-round selections rather than one premium pick. The Lions received a fourth- and fifth-round choice in 1979 plus a third-rounder in 1980. Those picks became tight end Ulysses Norris, Walt Brown and Mike Friede. Baltimore received Greg Landry and gave him an immediate opportunity to start.
Landry delivered the strongest single season produced by either side of the transaction. In 1979 he started 12 games for the Colts, completed 270 passes for 2,932 yards and threw 15 touchdowns. His role dropped sharply after that season, and he attempted only 76 passes across 1980 and 1981. The Colts therefore received a useful short-term quarterback bridge rather than a long-term answer.
Detroit’s return was spread across several players. Norris became the most durable piece, appearing in five Lions seasons and eventually starting all 15 games he played in 1983, when he caught seven touchdown passes. His overall offensive production was modest, while the other selections did not become major long-term difference-makers. The three-pick package created depth and some starting value without producing a star.
That makes the original A-versus-C+ spread too wide. Detroit did well to turn an aging quarterback into multiple assets, but Baltimore also received a nearly 3,000-yard starting season at the most important position. Matching B- grades recognize useful but limited returns on both sides. Neither club extracted enough lasting surplus value to justify declaring a clear winner. The transaction worked reasonably for each club’s different roster timeline, which is another reason the final judgment should remain balanced.