Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.
What's the point of giving Kofi Kingston all those really contrived non-elimination spots in the Royal Rumble, and almost every battle royal, when he's just going to get eliminated 2 minutes later anyway?
They just do it for the visual that it creates, a unique moment. It is done to add to the overall story of the match.
You were asked: "Turning Seth Rollins against the Shield would have made sense if HHH had put Rollins in the MITB match without qualifying. Then Rollins could say it was a business decision HHH provided. It would have made more sense then putting Randy Orton in first.
And You Responded:
I am typing this on Sunday so I don't know what they did on Raw yet but I couldn't agree more. HHH putting Orton in but not Rollins was bad storytelling. He should have put both of his guys in.
Don't you think you and the person who asked the question were both commenting too soon? Rollins was entry #1 into the announced MITB Briefcase match. Therefore I disagree with your 'bad storytelling' claim. I bring this up because you guys have been very negative as of late to the product, more so than in many years, when I believe the WWE is running some of the finest wrestling with a fine roster across the board. My point is, neither of you waited long enough for things to play out. If you're an every week viewer of WWE, the stories have been more slowly built than in the past, and I just think people all over jump on everything they do immediately, instead of judging when a string of weeks presents itself, and the full stories unfold. What do you think? Long time reader but the negativity I feel isn't what I've seen from you guys who are usually more unbiased, or maybe I mean less negative.
At the time, there was no second match announced. It happened after the fact. So it made perfect sense for anyone to wonder why H would put in Orton, but not his other guy. So no, I don't think I reacted too soon. Everyone has biases, as well as opinions. I think you don't see the big picture. The only long term storyline that played out recently was Daniel Bryan winning the Title, and that wasn't not WWE's plan. He was originally scheduled to work the fourth or fifth match from the top, but the fans MADE Vince put him in the main event. So he won the Title, and right after doing so he became a guy that ran from Kane instead of a tough guy that took on all comers head on. Rollins went from being a guy that never backed up to one that did. What was the long term storyline for John Cena-Bray Wyatt? For Cena to dominate? AGAIN? Sorry, if you are seeing great stories being told you and I see it differently.
I would think Vince wouldn't care if a talent didn't like the way he was being presented and asked for a release. Does Punk going home have any affect on Vince?
When your top guys do it, problems arise. WWE is thin at the top so it absolutely does have an affect when one of his few made men decides he wants to go home.
First I want to thank PWInsider. You guys have answered several of my questions lately and I appreciate it. In the answer to a question I asked about booking and the tired heel vs face formula you basically agreed with me and said you like to see more guys in the gray area. Guys who aren't an obvious heel or face, but are somewhere in the middle. Steve Austin basically popularized that type of character. He just wanted to kick ass and he didn't care who it was. My question this time is isn't Dean Ambrose perfect for this type of role? I think you've said he'd make a great heel and I agree, but I see a goldmine with him as a fringe type character. From what I've seen he's a very good talker and I think people would get behind some of the crazy stuff he says and find in funny much like fans did and still do with Austin or The Rock. I think that's what's missing from wrestling. Guys who can talk good who say they're going to whip somebodies ass then deliver on that promise. The humor in the things guys like Austin and The Rock said are what made them such great talkers in my opinion. Dean Ambrose can be that type of guy. I'm curious if you agree.
Ambrose could definitely play the role. He would be great at it. Let the people cheer if they want, a la Steve Austin, but make it so he doesn't kiss babies, he just kicks ass. I believe WWE needs more "real" characters like that. The old dichotomy of face/heel doesn't work the way it used to.
I'm sure fans remember that when the Shield debuted, they were heels employed by Paul Heyman to help CM Punk retain the WWE Championship against Ryback. All three guys played great heel personas that were different from the ‘running away’ type of heel and loved to get stuck in to a fight. My question is, why doesn't WWE let Seth Rollins revert to that type of character or become an evolved (for lack of a better term) version of that character? Saying that, I do think they shouldn’t have had any physicality between Ambrose and Rollins yet. This could’ve been achieved in other ways than making him look cowardly. Your thoughts?
WWE has a history of doing this when they turn someone. The Shield were ass kickers but Rollins turns heel and they make him a coward. WHY? It is an antiquated way of storytelling. Just because a guy isn't a face doesn't mean he has to be a coward. Cheater yes. Coward no. Look back at the Summer Of Punk. He got over by shooting to the crowd. So he wins the Title and they turn him face and neuter him off all of the stuff that got people behind him. Me, I let the guy keep as much of the stuff that got him over in the first place as possible.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q&A by clicking here.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
