Pinc Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited)   They can't build a good baby anymore. Seth Rollins came accross shite again. Nobody wants their good guys to be a whiner. That's how they went about turning Bret heel, and they are doing the same thing here and hoping it has the reverse effect? They are paying for not sticking with the plan with Roman at Mania 31.  Serious question, because it's a very intriguing thought experiment - how different do people think the landscape would be if they'd had Reigns slay Lesnar at Mania 31?  We would likely be spared Rollins' worst-title-reign-of-all-time, but I can't imagine the crowd reaction to Reigns would have changed at all. He would've gained a lot of credibility over night though; would it have been a 'success' if they had been able to establish him as a Cena-style made man babyface who is booed all the time? And what about the effect on Lesnar's credibility/star power? Do we still get the excellent Undertaker rematches? Is a properly-established Reigns the big draw for SummerSlam 2015 instead? Does it draw better than Brock/Taker?  The Mania 31 main event is the big sliding doors moment of recent WWE. May even be worth a thread of its own...   I'm not sure, I think Roman not winning the Rumble a few years ago lost him a lot of momentum, from what I can remember Roman/Brock was a good match but the build up wasn't amazing and still think Reigns was getting mixed reactions even back then, the match was good though and I think Rollins cashing in was perfect too, just a shame they brought The Authority angle into it afterwards with his first title reign, that dampened Rollins more than anything else.   Which Rumble are you talking about, 2014? That was never his to win. And he led the Shield through red hot feuds with the Wyatts and Evolution in the months that followed. Didn't do a thing to halt his momentum.  Rollins cashing in was an exciting moment but he's comically under qualified to be a heel World Champion as his interminable, ratings crushing title reign showed. At the time it was arguably a worthy gamble given Reigns' mixed-to-negative crowd reactions, but in hindsight it's a big stretch to say it was worth abandoning the Taker>Lesnar>Reigns succession plan they had built over the previous year. And I'm not having the Authority as the main cause of Rollins being an incessant bore throughout summer 2015. He was mis-cast as a heel but the rest of it was on him and his stupid ring work/voice/laugh, etc. Edited October 5, 2016 by Pinc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briefcase Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016    They can't build a good baby anymore. Seth Rollins came accross shite again. Nobody wants their good guys to be a whiner. That's how they went about turning Bret heel, and they are doing the same thing here and hoping it has the reverse effect? They are paying for not sticking with the plan with Roman at Mania 31.  Serious question, because it's a very intriguing thought experiment - how different do people think the landscape would be if they'd had Reigns slay Lesnar at Mania 31?  We would likely be spared Rollins' worst-title-reign-of-all-time, but I can't imagine the crowd reaction to Reigns would have changed at all. He would've gained a lot of credibility over night though; would it have been a 'success' if they had been able to establish him as a Cena-style made man babyface who is booed all the time? And what about the effect on Lesnar's credibility/star power? Do we still get the excellent Undertaker rematches? Is a properly-established Reigns the big draw for SummerSlam 2015 instead? Does it draw better than Brock/Taker?  The Mania 31 main event is the big sliding doors moment of recent WWE. May even be worth a thread of its own...   I'm not sure, I think Roman not winning the Rumble a few years ago lost him a lot of momentum, from what I can remember Roman/Brock was a good match but the build up wasn't amazing and still think Reigns was getting mixed reactions even back then, the match was good though and I think Rollins cashing in was perfect too, just a shame they brought The Authority angle into it afterwards with his first title reign, that dampened Rollins more than anything else.   Which Rumble are you talking about, 2014? That was never his to win. And he led the Shield through red hot feuds with the Wyatts and Evolution in the months that followed. Didn't do a thing to halt his momentum.  I can't remember the year now, but the one when the crowd were massively behind him, the one Batista won? My memory is a blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Yeah, that was 2014. The one were everyone decided that Daniel Bryan was winning it despite never been announced for the match and that Batista was obviously going to win the second they announced his comeback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016     They can't build a good baby anymore. Seth Rollins came accross shite again. Nobody wants their good guys to be a whiner. That's how they went about turning Bret heel, and they are doing the same thing here and hoping it has the reverse effect? They are paying for not sticking with the plan with Roman at Mania 31.  Serious question, because it's a very intriguing thought experiment - how different do people think the landscape would be if they'd had Reigns slay Lesnar at Mania 31?  We would likely be spared Rollins' worst-title-reign-of-all-time, but I can't imagine the crowd reaction to Reigns would have changed at all. He would've gained a lot of credibility over night though; would it have been a 'success' if they had been able to establish him as a Cena-style made man babyface who is booed all the time? And what about the effect on Lesnar's credibility/star power? Do we still get the excellent Undertaker rematches? Is a properly-established Reigns the big draw for SummerSlam 2015 instead? Does it draw better than Brock/Taker?  The Mania 31 main event is the big sliding doors moment of recent WWE. May even be worth a thread of its own...   I'm not sure, I think Roman not winning the Rumble a few years ago lost him a lot of momentum, from what I can remember Roman/Brock was a good match but the build up wasn't amazing and still think Reigns was getting mixed reactions even back then, the match was good though and I think Rollins cashing in was perfect too, just a shame they brought The Authority angle into it afterwards with his first title reign, that dampened Rollins more than anything else.   Which Rumble are you talking about, 2014? That was never his to win. And he led the Shield through red hot feuds with the Wyatts and Evolution in the months that followed. Didn't do a thing to halt his momentum.  I can't remember the year now, but the one when the crowd were massively behind him, the one Batista won? My memory is a blur.   The crowd were massively behind anyone-but-the-chosen-one winning, it wasn't anything to do with them wanting Reigns to win it in particular. For proof of this see the following year when he was the chosen one, and his Rumble win was booed out of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapnut Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Yeah, that was 2014. The one were everyone decided that Daniel Bryan was winning it despite never been announced for the match and that Batista was obviously going to win the second they announced his comeback  Because there's never been a Rumble winner who wasn't announced for the match beforehand, has there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted October 5, 2016 The crowd were massively behind anyone-but-the-chosen-one winning, it wasn't anything to do with them wanting Reigns to win it in particular. For proof of this see the following year when he was the chosen one, and his Rumble win was booed out of the building. I can see why Reigns wouldn't win the 2014 Rumble because the plan was obvious to everyone. With hindsight, that's probably the point where you put the rocket on his back and avoid a lot of the recrimination because it would seem far more natural. Hindsight though. I can see why they thought his time would come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members WeeAl Posted October 10, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted October 10, 2016 Paul Heyman is confirmed for Raw tonight. Â http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/paul-heyman-returning-tonights-episode-raw-222466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted October 10, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted October 10, 2016 WWE just went live on Facebook, with Paul Heyman getting out of a limo and saying tonight we'all find out what's next for Brock Lesnar. I think it speaks volumes for how boring and samey Brock has become that I genuinely couldn't remember what was last for Brock Lesnar. I thought it was the rubbish Ambrose match at Mania. I legitimately had to look it up to remember that Orton match at Summerslam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doog Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Wonder if tonight is the night we get the Goldberg announcement then. If it was the attitude era id go as far to say Goldberg will show up tonight but i doubt theyd have him appear unadvertised these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briefcase Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 I hate how they just announce it, its just so lazy. Fair enough the WWE universe probably knows its happening, but at least put some effort into it.  Even if they had Brock beating someone down on Raw after hearing nothing from Goldberg for a few weeks and then him coming out would be something, but they will probably just announce it like they did with Orton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
METAL ON METAL Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Probably just be him vs Strowman, given his request last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Being booed out of the building the year after is absolutely not proof that fans didn't want Roman to win it. He had been booked horribly leading up to that Rumble which totally changed fans views on him. Reigns was mad over at one point, you only need to look at the fans getting behind him at Survivor Series to see that. Â Problem is he was protected in The Shield not having to do much talking etc. and when he stepped out he was given John Cena material with a character that didn't match it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Goldberg next week. That's enough to get me interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theringmaster Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 I'm personally well excited for Goldberg. I have always been indifferent to him; never a huge fan, never a hater but it's always cool to see big names who haven't appeared in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 11, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted October 11, 2016 Three hell in a cell matches at the PPV including a first ever women's HIAC. Be interesting to see how they use the gimmick for that one. Obviously it's so far removed from the original concept these days that is incomparable but still seems odd to have women in there in a match that has no build that requires the stip. The you deserve HIAC stuff just makes no sense on TV. Â Rusev has a new beard. Like Dieumerci Mbokani's. Looks odd. Â Goldberg was the hook to watch. He's the hook for next week too. Everything else is a bit Groundhog Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts