Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 13:29:47 GMT -5
He's not an indie darling, and I have to believe that's where most of the heat comes from. End of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jul 4, 2014 13:38:08 GMT -5
I think he has the tools but they need developing by the time he's hitting the main event scene hopefully he'll be ready for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jul 4, 2014 13:39:32 GMT -5
Taking over for Cena? I doubt it. Cena is the toral package, Roman is not. Of course they'll never have another Cena. Anybody that follows him -- Reigns, Bryan, whoever -- will be a huge step down. They've never had a main eventer before that had the same combination of longevity, loyalty, money drawing, sponsor-friendly, charity-friendly, great matches, talking ability, merchandising strength etc that Cena has, and they'll likely never have it again. But the next guy can still provide great moments. Personally, I'm not into the Roman Reigns/Triple H thing as a big deal. Triple H already lost this year to SuperBryan, and then to The Shield twice in a row. I'm not seeing Reigns beating HHH as a huge moment because Reigns has already beaten him comprehensively. SuperBryan beat him decisively before that. Lesnar beat him in two of his previous three matches. Hunter needs to win a few to make beating him mean more again. |
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Jul 4, 2014 13:52:59 GMT -5
He's not an indie darling, and I have to believe that's where most of the heat comes from. End of discussion. No, it's not the end of the discussion. The only indy wrestling I watch is Devitt matches and TNA sometimes (<That was a joke for those who don't get sarcasm). And I still hate Reigns. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jul 4, 2014 13:57:00 GMT -5
He's not an indie darling, and I have to believe that's where most of the heat comes from. End of discussion. Not quite the end of discussion. There's this one too: People don't like the one they're gonna push. Obviously. REBELS. THE MAN CAN'T HOLD EM DOWN. Between those two things, end of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Jul 4, 2014 14:01:49 GMT -5
I have never seen any of Deans or Roins indy stuff..still, I found myself drawn to them over Reigns. Like others have stated, I think he will have a Batista type role. Taking over for Cena? I doubt it. Cena is the toral package, Roman is not. This. The "he's not Indy so the IWC doesn't like him" argument is so lame. Dolph Ziggler, Bad News Barrett, Bray Wyatt. Three guys the Internet generally loves and they aren't "indy" at all. I don't give a damn if Roman Reigns wrestled a 60-minute iron man match against Bryan Danielson in ROH 10 years ago in a bingo hall. That wouldn't affect my opinion whatsoever. I judge Reigns based on what I've seen on WWE TV. He's not the next guy. He's just not. To be "the guy" and not just another main eventer, you need everything. Reigns doesn't have it all. He doesn't even have most of it. I don't like John Cena (ZOMG CUZ HE'S NOT INDIE) but I acknowledge the guy has everything WWE wants to be the top star. |
|
|
|
Post by Edge618 on Jul 4, 2014 14:11:05 GMT -5
I'll never get why he just suddenly became the Shields leader too... I am not denying he has this "it" thing but still, I find Ambrose and Rollins far better than him in every regard. Roman hasn't impressed me once. That's the one thing that bothers me about the Shield. The first 6 months I thought it was pretty clear that Dean was the leader. Then for the next 6 months or so they didn't have a clean cut leader, then from November to January it was certainly Roman. Then all of the sudden Rollins and the architect nickname are being pushed with the false breakup and what not. Then it was back to Roman being the leader. They never stated any of them were the leader but it was certainly implicated at points in time that one of the three was the "leader". Then again maybe thats not such a bad thing. That was the whole point, they never had a leader. Ambrose was the clear main guy when they started, and eventually storyline wise Reigns got tired of him acting like he was the leader, and he stepped out more. That's when he got extremely over, and he was positioned as the front runner of the shield. And now they're giving Rollins the creator gimmick to make him seem just as important a part of the whole thing. It was done perfectly, never before has a group broke up and every member looks as destined for success as the other |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Karate on Jul 4, 2014 14:15:36 GMT -5
That's the one thing that bothers me about the Shield. The first 6 months I thought it was pretty clear that Dean was the leader. Then for the next 6 months or so they didn't have a clean cut leader, then from November to January it was certainly Roman. Then all of the sudden Rollins and the architect nickname are being pushed with the false breakup and what not. Then it was back to Roman being the leader. They never stated any of them were the leader but it was certainly implicated at points in time that one of the three was the "leader". Then again maybe thats not such a bad thing. That was the whole point, they never had a leader. Ambrose was the clear main guy when they started, and eventually storyline wise Reigns got tired of him acting like he was the leader, and he stepped out more. That's when he got extremely over, and he was positioned as the front runner of the shield. And now they're giving Rollins the creator gimmick to make him seem just as important a part of the whole thing. It was done perfectly, never before has a group broke up and every member looks as destined for success as the other Hence why I said that it wasn't a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Jul 4, 2014 14:18:20 GMT -5
Not quite the end of discussion. There's this one too: People don't like the one they're gonna push. Obviously. REBELS. THE MAN CAN'T HOLD EM DOWN. Between those two things, end of discussion. Ridiculously arrogant, close-minded and judgmental post by you. So according to you it's not possible to just not like Roman Reigns? WE HAVE TO LIKE HIM or we're some kind of indie-lover who hates anybody WWE tries to push unless they're an internet darling? If that's the case, we might as well just stick with the theory of "Anybody who likes John Cena is a 7-year old girl". I mean, why not? It's the same principle. Lazy stereotyping. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 14:35:40 GMT -5
Not quite the end of discussion. There's this one too: People don't like the one they're gonna push. Obviously. REBELS. THE MAN CAN'T HOLD EM DOWN. Between those two things, end of discussion. Now that is not fair at all. What's wrong for liking our favorites? Isn't that the fun of wrestling? You bet when I was a kid I cheered for Goldust, Big Bossman, the Outlaws, Steve Blackman, Raven,the Hardys etc. I wanted them to win, even if they were "jobbers (I hate that term) or midcarders". So what if we prefer the other two or simply don't like Reigns? The mentality around here lately is becoming very tiresome, which is one extreme or the other extreme. I like Reigns. I do not believe for one second he is more talented than Dean or Rollins. That has nothing to do with their indy work or even their NXT work. I saw all three for the first time like everyone else. I do not believe Reigns has the mic skills or wrestling ability to be a main event player. He is no Cena, no Austin, no Rock, no Hogan. I like him. Just not in a way I believe he should be above the other two. Once they started making Ambrose look bad at the benefit of Reigns, is when I soured on him a little. The Shield started as equals and then towards the end it became about Reigns. Do I agree with him being mega pushed? No. Is there anything I can do about it? Not a damn thing. But you bet I am still going to hope and cheer for Ambrose and Rollins over Reigns. I don't see what's so bad about having favorites, and the mentality that has infected this section that is "you only want your favorites pushed" greatly annoys me. Of course we want our favorites pushed! Some people act like they are running WWE themselves saying how "he should never be world champion, or he should be fired". We're fans and we have our own favorite wrestlers. And you can bet if Jeff Hardy came back tomorrow and challenged Cena for the titles, I would be cheering for Hardy over Cena. I just don't get why we can't have civil discussions anymore without resulting to such tactics. Baiting and mocking will get us nowhere. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 14:36:55 GMT -5
I like him. He's good. He's not Cena. He's not Orton. He's someone new and different.
I have no complaints.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Jul 4, 2014 14:51:28 GMT -5
No there right, I'll just give up on my favorites and go with what WWE tells me to like. After all, that's how the world works right? Don't like what you want, like what they tell you to want.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 14:54:16 GMT -5
Regardless if some on wfigs, or twitter, or Facebook, or MySpace, or anything else don't like Reigns, or his mic skills, or his work, it's really irrelevant. Like a mod said, at no point in wrestling history have the fans been 100% behind the top guy. And there always has to be a top guy. Always has. Always will. Cena can't be at the top forever. Someone will have to take that spot, and no it won't be Daniel Bryan. He wasn't going to be the top guy after WrestleMania anyway as Cena still will be. Facts point to that by when CM Punk was trying to be the new top guy but apparently wwe didn't really want that to happen evidenced by Cena still main eventing the ppv's. Bottom line is, it's what the WWE wants. And yes, the whole Daniel Bryan and yes thing can prove otherwise to an extent, but Cena was still their top guy. Wwe will put the title on somebody like Bryan or Punk but that doesn't make them the top guy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and stuff but WWE's top guy requirements are to be good looking, size and muscle, and be able to be a fan favorite, at least as far as the children go. Hell, it's not obvious or anything but I'm a huge Taker fan, I think he's the greatest of all time. Character wise, wrestling ability for a man his size, etc. But I am well aware that most people won't agree that he's the greatest. Aside from the fact that there's guys in the WWE locker room that probably feel the same, as well as some who have a lot more to do with wrestling than you or I. Undertaker was never the top guy, but I feel that he could have and should have been. I got a little off topic there, but the fact is that WWE can't and won't please everyone. But as Bash said, it's something new and something different. At least give it a chance. Your favorite may not ever be a top guy and that's just something that you'll have to live with and get over it. We can't all be talent evaluators or armchair bookers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Jul 4, 2014 15:06:06 GMT -5
Regardless if some on wfigs, or twitter, or Facebook, or MySpace, or anything else don't like Reigns, or his mic skills, or his work, it's really irrelevant. Like a mod said, at no point in wrestling history have the fans been 100% behind the top guy. And there always has to be a top guy. Always has. Always will. Cena can't be at the top forever. Someone will have to take that spot, and no it won't be Daniel Bryan. He wasn't going to be the top guy after WrestleMania anyway as Cena still will be. Facts point to that by when CM Punk was trying to be the new top guy but apparently wwe didn't really want that to happen evidenced by Cena still main eventing the ppv's. Bottom line is, it's what the WWE wants. And yes, the whole Daniel Bryan and yes thing can prove otherwise to an extent, but Cena was still their top guy. Wwe will put the title on somebody like Bryan or Punk but that doesn't make them the top guy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and stuff but WWE's top guy requirements are to be good looking, size and muscle, and be able to be a fan favorite, at least as far as the children go. Hell, it's not obvious or anything but I'm a huge Taker fan, I think he's the greatest of all time. Character wise, wrestling ability for a man his size, etc. But I am well aware that most people won't agree that he's the greatest. Aside from the fact that there's guys in the WWE locker room that probably feel the same, as well as some who have a lot more to do with wrestling than you or I. Undertaker was never the top guy, but I feel that he could have and should have been. I got a little off topic there, but the fact is that WWE can't and won't please everyone. But as Bash said, it's something new and something different. At least give it a chance. Your favorite may not ever be a top guy and that's just something that you'll have to live with and get over it. We can't all be talent evaluators or armchair bookers. It won't be irrelevant for long, once he is in Cena's position the fans will grow tired of Super Reigns just like they have with John. You need to be good looking, have a decent size and have a ton of charisma, Reigns has 2/3 imo. Once he's on his own and doesn't have the amazingly over protected booking people will see that he's not this charisma fountain people seem to think that he is currently. Oh, and yes I can be a talent evaluater because I know what I want in a wrestler and I know the talent it takes so whether or not WWE agrees with me or not doesn't really make a difference. This is a company that doesn't know talent if it slaps them in the face, they throw away money constantly just to prove a point so some people there aren't exactly qualified for their jobs either. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 15:09:08 GMT -5
I like him. He's good. He's not Cena. He's not Orton. He's someone new and different. I have no complaints. I agree with this. He's a new main-event badass face. Until he starts cracking lame jokes like face Punk and Cena, he's fine by me. It's not like they're shoving Mojo Rawley down our throats. Yet. |
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Jul 4, 2014 15:15:33 GMT -5
I like him. He's good. He's not Cena. He's not Orton. He's someone new and different. I have no complaints. I agree with this. He's a new main-event badass face. Until he starts cracking lame jokes like face Punk and Cena, he's fine by me. It's not like they're shoving Mojo Rawley down our throats. Yet. He's different but that doesn't make him good. I'm just expecting him to turn into Cena in the next 1-2 years. Please God just let them release Mojo, I'll gladly take Reigns over him, he is the definition of terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jul 4, 2014 15:27:48 GMT -5
What's wrong for liking our favorites? Nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by el torro on Jul 4, 2014 15:29:55 GMT -5
Not quite the end of discussion. There's this one too: Between those two things, end of discussion. Ridiculously arrogant, close-minded and judgmental post by you. So according to you it's not possible to just not like Roman Reigns? WE HAVE TO LIKE HIM or we're some kind of indie-lover who hates anybody WWE tries to push unless they're an internet darling? If that's the case, we might as well just stick with the theory of "Anybody who likes John Cena is a 7-year old girl". I mean, why not? It's the same principle. Lazy stereotyping. This man knows. End of discussion. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 11:16:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 15:34:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TKO Propagandist on Jul 4, 2014 15:35:26 GMT -5
WWE tell you who to like and if you don't, then you're just an ''internet fan''.
|
|
Hogan VS Flair