PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2017-03-20 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

I was watching the RAW after show on the WWE network - Bring It to the Table. JBL made some good points. He stated people complained that Daniel Bryan wasn't being pushed but yet was on multiple segments of each show. The topic then went to Goldberg/Lesnar at Wrestlemania. JBL made the comment that they (Goldberg & Lesnar) are needed for their name recognition or whatever but they didn't need things like that during the Attitude Era. My question is this,.. Isn't that only true because any big names that could have come back during the Attitude Era were already working for WCW? Really, who would they or could they have called back then? They HAD to rely on their current roster.  Just seemed like JBL's statement while it sounds good just doesn't ring true, your thoughts.

I think JBL was doing the best that he could to try and explain something that is really hard to try and explain.  Even if WWE could get their hands on big names back then, they didn’t need to do it because they focused their efforts on making stars.  They also, very smartly, protected the stars that they built.  They, quite simply, don’t do that today so it forces them to rely on older names.

I just read your answer about how you hope  the Miz beats Cena and I agree, but my question would be could you see where The Undertaker comes out to cost Cena the match, kind of how The Rock did and set up Undertaker for a year long feud?

Could I see them doing it?  Yes.  As I mentioned above, WWE relies on older names now because they don’t do a good enough job of creating new stars.  But, I think if they do go that road, they just continue that pattern.  Miz will be staying around.  Cena is leaving to do another movie.  It makes sense to give Miz a rub, not have him need help to get the win.  I think he needs to win on his own.

The first Wrestlemania Memorial Battle Royal it make perfect sense to name it after Andre the Giant. But why continue to call it that every year? I personally would enjoy if it was named after a different legend every year so they could get some more recognition, instead of the same guy every year. Or even name it after someone still alive. Imagine winning say the Bruno Sammartino battle royal, and actually have Bruno present you with the trophy. Your thoughts?

Honestly, the match doesn’t mean a thing to me.  The winner just wins it, and that is it.  It has no standing with me.  I would like to see it eliminated myself so it doesn’t matter to me what the name is.

When the gong goes off but Undertaker isn't in the building, how are we supposed to imagine he makes it happen? Does he text the sound guy during Roman's match "now"? That doesn't seem too Phenom-esque.

I could hear Vince McMahon saying, “If he could make the music play and not be in the building that makes him a true Phenom, Pal!”  Me?  I just see it as another one of those WWE things that don’t make any sense.

Every time WWE holds a draft, the distinction between the brands is incrementally chipped away. At first, it can be exciting to see wrestlers from one show move to the other. Over time, the line between the shows is so blurred it ceases to exist. In my view this was a significant factor in the original brand split's failure. With that said, would it be wise for WWE to hold off on another draft now that the shows have distinct identities again?

I think if WWE is going to do a draft, it needs to be smaller and for NXT and maybe unsigned talent.  They can’t break up the brands or it just doesn’t make sense.  If they want to move people from roster to roster, do trades, like real sports teams do.  To just throw all of the names into a hat would make zero sense.

You can send us questions for the Q and A at

If you enjoy you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more, right now for THREE DAYS free by clicking here!