|
|
Post by 0,Y on Mar 17, 2015 5:35:41 GMT -5
Reigns wins against everything and everyone in order to build him up
WF: He's shoved down our throats, Reignswinslol
Reigns loses 1 or 2 matches by distraction
WF: He lost 2 times, he's not a credible threat to Lesnar
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 5:48:03 GMT -5
Only, the backlash from detractors would be even worse if he had literally steamrolled every opponent in his path (as opposed to steamrolled most opponents in his path)... I'm absolutely not denying that. I totally agree. I'm just stating that the thought that he's not ready, but also isn't even being pushed right isn't nonsense. Take away any opinions on Roman Reigns and, as a casual viewer, they haven't booked him as a guy that could believably beat Brock Lesnar. This is, yet again, a problem more with handling across the board, for me: - We want to build Roman Reigns up as a credible threat. How do we do that? -- We have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker's Streak a year before. --- Alright, that's good. That's intense. But how do we prepare whoever his opponent is, to take him down. ---- We put him against the best, and most threatening this business has to offer. ----- Alright. Wait...like who? Wyatt? ------ Shield beat the Wyatt family. Sheamus? ------- He's out injured. And he's got a midcard title. -------- Cena? Fans wouldn't latch on to that. What about Orton? --------- Yeah. That's one. We have Show and Kane, too? ---------- Yeah! And Mark Henry! Those guys are all threatening! And in the mean time Reigns and Lesnar can go back and forth? ----------- Well, Lesnar only has so many dates he can do. But we have Paul! People can't stand Heyman, put him in the ring and they'll love whoever comes out against him. See the problem is, over here you have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker to end the streak. Alright. But then over here, you have a new superstar you want to make for life, by having him beat that Beast. In and of itself, not a terrible plan. But it plays terribly, when your unbeatable Beast doesn't show up, and your up and coming superstars biggest threats are Big Show, Kane, Mark Henry and Randy Orton. Toss in Daniel Bryan, too. The stacked roster I keep mentioning? They're doing a piss poor job across the board of developing ALL of them. So instead of beating guys like Wyatt, Cesaro, Barrett, and the like, meaning something -- they're considered "throw away" matches. Because these guys haven't been developed properly. This is, yet again, fall out from only letting Cena/Orton sit at the top for so long, without thinking ahead. You get to this next leg of the race, and nobody's standing there waiting to take the baton. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 7:44:17 GMT -5
I'm absolutely not denying that. I totally agree. I'm just stating that the thought that he's not ready, but also isn't even being pushed right isn't nonsense. Take away any opinions on Roman Reigns and, as a casual viewer, they haven't booked him as a guy that could believably beat Brock Lesnar. This is, yet again, a problem more with handling across the board, for me: - We want to build Roman Reigns up as a credible threat. How do we do that? -- We have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker's Streak a year before. --- Alright, that's good. That's intense. But how do we prepare whoever his opponent is, to take him down. ---- We put him against the best, and most threatening this business has to offer. ----- Alright. Wait...like who? Wyatt? ------ Shield beat the Wyatt family. Sheamus? ------- He's out injured. And he's got a midcard title. -------- Cena? Fans wouldn't latch on to that. What about Orton? --------- Yeah. That's one. We have Show and Kane, too? ---------- Yeah! And Mark Henry! Those guys are all threatening! And in the mean time Reigns and Lesnar can go back and forth? ----------- Well, Lesnar only has so many dates he can do. But we have Paul! People can't stand Heyman, put him in the ring and they'll love whoever comes out against him. See the problem is, over here you have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker to end the streak. Alright. But then over here, you have a new superstar you want to make for life, by having him beat that Beast. In and of itself, not a terrible plan. But it plays terribly, when your unbeatable Beast doesn't show up, and your up and coming superstars biggest threats are Big Show, Kane, Mark Henry and Randy Orton. Toss in Daniel Bryan, too. The stacked roster I keep mentioning? They're doing a piss poor job across the board of developing ALL of them. So instead of beating guys like Wyatt, Cesaro, Barrett, and the like, meaning something -- they're considered "throw away" matches. Because these guys haven't been developed properly. This is, yet again, fall out from only letting Cena/Orton sit at the top for so long, without thinking ahead. You get to this next leg of the race, and nobody's standing there waiting to take the baton. Excellent. Your point about developing nobody while Cena sat on top of the hill is a GREAT one. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 7:49:01 GMT -5
This is, yet again, a problem more with handling across the board, for me: - We want to build Roman Reigns up as a credible threat. How do we do that? -- We have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker's Streak a year before. --- Alright, that's good. That's intense. But how do we prepare whoever his opponent is, to take him down. ---- We put him against the best, and most threatening this business has to offer. ----- Alright. Wait...like who? Wyatt? ------ Shield beat the Wyatt family. Sheamus? ------- He's out injured. And he's got a midcard title. -------- Cena? Fans wouldn't latch on to that. What about Orton? --------- Yeah. That's one. We have Show and Kane, too? ---------- Yeah! And Mark Henry! Those guys are all threatening! And in the mean time Reigns and Lesnar can go back and forth? ----------- Well, Lesnar only has so many dates he can do. But we have Paul! People can't stand Heyman, put him in the ring and they'll love whoever comes out against him. See the problem is, over here you have Brock Lesnar beat The Undertaker to end the streak. Alright. But then over here, you have a new superstar you want to make for life, by having him beat that Beast. In and of itself, not a terrible plan. But it plays terribly, when your unbeatable Beast doesn't show up, and your up and coming superstars biggest threats are Big Show, Kane, Mark Henry and Randy Orton. Toss in Daniel Bryan, too. The stacked roster I keep mentioning? They're doing a piss poor job across the board of developing ALL of them. So instead of beating guys like Wyatt, Cesaro, Barrett, and the like, meaning something -- they're considered "throw away" matches. Because these guys haven't been developed properly. This is, yet again, fall out from only letting Cena/Orton sit at the top for so long, without thinking ahead. You get to this next leg of the race, and nobody's standing there waiting to take the baton. Excellent. Your point about developing nobody while Cena sat on top of the hill is a GREAT one. Appreciated. I don't hide my Reigns fandom. I think the guy has great potential, and I think him winning at WM is far better long term, than it is bad, but -- after hearing they were in the same building last week and didn't have a face to face, then saw last night...with only two weeks left, the handling is just atrocious. I can't, and don't think anyone should, blame Roman Reigns. Most people aren't, but we gotta see it for what it is. WWE has done a LOT right, in long term handling. Not developing talent that should/could be, is not one of them. So now we have Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Kane, Big Show, and Mark Henry. Who's a credible opponent of any sort outside of that, that works even semi-regularly?...I'll wait, folks. *Edit* let's not forget feeding the Wyatts to Cena, and how god awful that whole thing was. Wyatt should be THE monster in WWE right now. If he beats Taker, that may help a bit. But that whole thing he went through with Cena was a terrible thing to establish him. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 7:53:26 GMT -5
Excellent. Your point about developing nobody while Cena sat on top of the hill is a GREAT one. Appreciated. I don't hide my Reigns fandom. I think the guy has great potential, and I think him winning at WM is far better long term, than it is bad, but -- after hearing they were in the same building last week and didn't have a face to face, then saw last night...with only two weeks left, the handling is just atrocious. I can't, and don't think anyone should, blame Roman Reigns. Most people aren't, but we gotta see it for what it is. WWE has done a LOT right, in long term handling. Not developing talent that should/could be, is not one of them. So now we have Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Kane, Big Show, and Mark Henry. Who's a credible opponent of any sort outside of that, that works even semi-regularly?...I'll wait, folks. I have said here repeatedly that the scenarios with Reigns as champ are weak. as you correctly point out He has nobody to face after Lesnar. Its like Macho as champ in 1992 or Warrior as Champ in 1990......the list of credible heels for them to work with was shallow.....so they had to revert to old programs(Flair & Rude) |
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 8:03:36 GMT -5
Appreciated. I don't hide my Reigns fandom. I think the guy has great potential, and I think him winning at WM is far better long term, than it is bad, but -- after hearing they were in the same building last week and didn't have a face to face, then saw last night...with only two weeks left, the handling is just atrocious. I can't, and don't think anyone should, blame Roman Reigns. Most people aren't, but we gotta see it for what it is. WWE has done a LOT right, in long term handling. Not developing talent that should/could be, is not one of them. So now we have Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Kane, Big Show, and Mark Henry. Who's a credible opponent of any sort outside of that, that works even semi-regularly?...I'll wait, folks. I have said here repeatedly that the scenarios with Reigns as champ are weak. as you correctly point out He has nobody to face after Lesnar. Its like Macho as champ in 1992 or Warrior as Champ in 1990......the list of credible heels for them to work with was shallow.....so they had to revert to old programs(Flair & Rude) Well I had typed out a whole long well thought out response but the net cut out on my computer at Starbucks and it deleted it when I sent it. So I'll retyped it short. Outside of Wyatt, Rollins, Rusev, and potentially Sheamus who does Reigns have to face? Ziggler heel is entertaining. Ambrose could work. Hell, Cena with an attitude could work. If they insist on keeping Reigns face, they need to develop more villainous characters. I hate to join the "Turn Reigns Heel" wagon, but -- there are far more interesting stories that route, at the moment. WWE's product needs to improve Post Mania, and right now, it's not looking like it will. Reigns is going to catch a lot of flack for that, when it's Creative (starting at the top) that should be publicly apologizing. *Edit* with two weeks until Wrestlemania, why is Orton/Sting standing tall in the ring to close the show? At least have the Authority fight back and out come Reigns, Bryan and Ambrose to even the odds. I mean...come on. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 8:07:47 GMT -5
Oh yes.....the problems are legion currently within creative.....and as you say? there looks to be no cure on the horizon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 8:09:17 GMT -5
Oh yes.....the problems are legion currently within creative.....and as you say? there looks to be no cure on the horizon. :Coughs: Hire me :Coughs: Sorry. It's dusty on these boards first thing in the AM. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 8:17:46 GMT -5
Oh yes.....the problems are legion currently within creative.....and as you say? there looks to be no cure on the horizon. :Coughs: Hire me :Coughs: Sorry. It's dusty on these boards first thing in the AM. LOL. Unfortunately part of the problem within creative is that it remains structured in the incredibly destructive style that Steph brought to the table in 2002 when she became VP. this needs to go before any genuine recovery can take place. |
|
xavion2004
Superstar
Joined on: Nov 25, 2014 9:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 640 
|
Post by xavion2004 on Mar 17, 2015 9:10:03 GMT -5
So let's jump ahead. Assuming Reigns walks out of Wrestlemania with the title, does the backlash die down? At that point, what's done is done, right? Or not necessarily?
The fans were definitely giving him a tough time last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 9:12:52 GMT -5
So let's jump ahead. Assuming Reigns walks out of Wrestlemania with the title, does the backlash die down? The fans were definitely giving him a tough time last night. Depends entirely on the program he goes into after Mania, and how the match goes at WM. If it's just Lesnar beating on him for 15 minutes, then he hits his super man moves...it's not going to be pretty. If it's a hard hitting back and forth match, and he goes into an interesting program the next night, it could come out alright. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 9:27:11 GMT -5
So let's jump ahead. Assuming Reigns walks out of Wrestlemania with the title, does the backlash die down? The fans were definitely giving him a tough time last night. Depends entirely on the program he goes into after Mania, and how the match goes at WM. If it's just Lesnar beating on him for 15 minutes, then he hits his super man moves...it's not going to be pretty. If it's a hard hitting back and forth match, and he goes into an interesting program the next night, it could come out alright. It HAS to be a hard hitting power brawl(Goldberg vs Steiner @ fall Brawl 2000) for RR to even have a tiny chance of getting over. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 17, 2015 9:38:42 GMT -5
Depends entirely on the program he goes into after Mania, and how the match goes at WM. If it's just Lesnar beating on him for 15 minutes, then he hits his super man moves...it's not going to be pretty. If it's a hard hitting back and forth match, and he goes into an interesting program the next night, it could come out alright. It HAS to be a hard hitting power brawl(Goldberg vs Steiner @ fall Brawl 2000) for RR to even have a tiny chance of getting over. Oh, I agree. I hope someone goes through a barricade, the stairs, the announcers table, maybe the LED stage, off the entrance through a table, and maybe even through the ring. Throw in a few kick outs of power moves like the Rock/SCSA match back during their WM match. They need to legit both be helped out by the end, regardless of who wins. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Mar 17, 2015 14:51:59 GMT -5
I'm watching NXT episodes from 2012 and heel Roman Reigns seems much more natural. Not saying he should be a heel right now, I'm just saying he looks more comfortable like that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 15:06:54 GMT -5
I'm watching NXT episodes from 2012 and heel Roman Reigns seems much more natural. Not saying he should be a heel right now, I'm just saying he looks more comfortable like that. I normally roll my eyes at '_____ should be Heel' arguments but I agree with this; in my opinion he's already doing a fine job of dealing with his detractors, but one thing I really liked about his Heel run in the Shield was how he gave the impression that he just didn't give a damn what anyone thought about him. He never addressed fans or opponents and never resorted to throwing insults (he hardly ever spoke (and most of us agree mic work is far from a strong aspect of his game)), he just came down those stairs with one thing in mind and that one thing was tearing crapup. I loved the simplicity of that and as people have said it disguised his weaknesses. I enjoy Reigns much more when he's portrayed like that because he isn't great at pandering to fans and it doesn't suit him at all. But as a Heel he is capable of coming across as self-assured and obnoxious without having to actually say anthing, I have found anyway. He's way more comfortable when he's not worrying about what the fans think of him, I've noticed that in the last few weeks even. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Mar 17, 2015 15:10:39 GMT -5
I'm watching NXT episodes from 2012 and heel Roman Reigns seems much more natural. Not saying he should be a heel right now, I'm just saying he looks more comfortable like that. I normally roll my eyes at '_____ should be Heel' arguments but I agree with this; in my opinion he's already doing a fine job of dealing with his detractors, but one thing I really liked about his Heel run in the Shield was how he gave the impression that he just didn't give a damn what anyone thought about him. He never addressed fans or opponents and never resorted to throwing insults (he hardly ever spoke (and most of us agree mic work is far from a strong aspect of his game)), he just came down those stairs with one thing in mind and that one thing was tearing crap up. I loved the simplicity of that and as people have said it disguised his weaknesses. I enjoy Reigns much more when he's portrayed like that because he isn't great at pandering to fans and it doesn't suit him at all. But as a Heel he is capable of coming across as self-assured and obnoxious without having to actually say anthing, I have found anyway. He's way more comfortable when he's not worrying about what the fans think of him, I've noticed that in the last few weeks even. Basically. I think that even as a face, he should stick to the badass, "the less said the better" approach. It's what made him cool in the first place. Similar to how the Shield turned face, but didn't change anything about their character. It worked because you keep what the fans liked in the first place. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 16:49:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 15:12:50 GMT -5
I normally roll my eyes at '_____ should be Heel' arguments but I agree with this; in my opinion he's already doing a fine job of dealing with his detractors, but one thing I really liked about his Heel run in the Shield was how he gave the impression that he just didn't give a damn what anyone thought about him. He never addressed fans or opponents and never resorted to throwing insults (he hardly ever spoke (and most of us agree mic work is far from a strong aspect of his game)), he just came down those stairs with one thing in mind and that one thing was tearing crap up. I loved the simplicity of that and as people have said it disguised his weaknesses. I enjoy Reigns much more when he's portrayed like that because he isn't great at pandering to fans and it doesn't suit him at all. But as a Heel he is capable of coming across as self-assured and obnoxious without having to actually say anthing, I have found anyway. He's way more comfortable when he's not worrying about what the fans think of him, I've noticed that in the last few weeks even. Basically. I think that even as a face, he should stick to the badass, "the less said the better" approach. It's what made him cool in the first place. Similar to how the Shield turned face, but didn't change anything about their character. It worked because you keep what the fans liked in the first place. Frankly, one of the most well-handled turns (Face or Heel) ever in my opinion. |
|
