Baltimore acquired tight end Ron Mayo from Houston on…
Baltimore acquired tight end Ron Mayo from Houston on September 12, 1974, for the 1975 tenth-round pick at No. 246. Mayo appeared in nine games for the Colts that season without a start and contributed mainly on special teams. Houston used the returned selection on Alan Pringle, who did not produce a significant NFL career, leaving the exchange close to neutral.
Indianapolis Colts Received
- player Ron Mayo
Tennessee Titans Received
- pick 1975 tenth round pick (#246-Alan Pringle)
Trade Analysis
What Changed Hands
Baltimore acquired tight end Ron Mayo from Houston in September 1974 for the 1975 tenth-round selection at No. 246. The Colts had obtained that choice from Houston earlier in the Fred Hoaglin trade, then sent it back to Houston for Mayo. The Oilers ultimately used the selection on defensive back Alan Pringle.
Why the Date Is Settled
The Colts' 1975 media guide lists the Mayo acquisition on September 12, 1974. A later official Colts media guide repeats September 12 and identifies the No. 246 selection, while Pro Sports Transactions also records September 12. A 1976 Patriots biography says September 10, but two Colts transaction histories and the draft-pick chain support September 12 as the canonical transaction date.
How the Return Played Out
Mayo appeared in nine games for Baltimore in 1974 without starting. His role was limited largely to special teams, including two kickoff returns. Houston's eventual draft return, Alan Pringle, did not develop into a meaningful NFL contributor. Neither side extracted a large amount of lasting value from the exchange.
Value on Both Sides
Baltimore added an experienced tight end for immediate depth at the cost of a tenth-round pick, a low-risk move that produced some game-day use. Houston recovered a late selection but did not turn it into a significant player. The modest results on both sides support the existing neutral treatment instead of forcing a winner.
Final Verdict
The September 12, 1974 date and the Ron Mayo-for-No. 246 package are sufficiently supported. The Even Trade verdict and C grades for both franchises remain appropriate.