This week on the WWE Network is the much talked about Undertaker week. Yesterday, I watched the Legends With JBL show and they said something that really caught my attention. They (JBL, Austin, HBK, and HHH) all said that in 1995, if Taker had have jumped ship along with Nash, Hall, and others that the WWE probably wouldve went under and that they wouldnt be having the discussion that they were having. So I started wondering; Was Taker really that important to the success of the WWE? At first, when I thought about this prospect, I was thinking that; no, Taker wasnt that important. Look, you wont find a bigger Taker fan than me, however, Im not a blind Taker mark. Taker was never the #1 guy in the WWE. He was always a top tier guy that could be put into the main event at any time, but he was never the undisputed guy. During that period of time, it was Bret Hart and HBK that were the ones carrying the company. Taker was definitely a main stay, but he wasnt as important to the companys success as those two. Then, I gave this idea a little more thought. I had to think about what wouldve really happened had Taker jumped ship in the mid 90s. First, and this is arguable, there wouldnt have been a Mankind and by extension there wouldnt have been Cactus Jack, Dude Love, or Mick Foley. Sure, Mankind may have still been introduced, however, would he have gotten over as well as he did when he debuted if there was no Undertaker? Remember, the night after WM 12 was when Mankind debuted and that was the night that he started his feud with Taker. They had a great feud in 96, then in 97 after Taker had won the title at WM 13 they had another great feud and let us not forget what they done in 98 with their famous HIAC match. So without Taker, would Foley have gotten over as big as he did? I dont think so. Also, if theres no Foley, who then is going to be that perfect foil for the Rock to get over with as a heel when the Rock finally became WWE Champion? Makes you think; doesnt it? Also, and this one is not arguable, if there is no Taker then there damn sure wouldnt have been a Kane. I don't really know if that effects WWE in a huge way or not, but its a point worth mentioning. So right there, if you take away Taker, you take away three of the WWEs main stays during the Attitude Era. Possibly four because no Foley, maybe no Corporate Rock. There also wouldnt have been the Ministry/Corporate Ministry of Darkness either during the Attitude Era. So without Taker, several main storylines of the Attitude Era wouldnt have happened. Also, lets say that WWE did survive the Monday Night Wars without Taker; the biggest thing that his absence would have definitely given us after the Monday Night Wars would have been no Streak. Would some of those Wrestlemanias have done as well as they did without the Streak and all those classic Streak matches? I could also speculate that the WWE Locker Room wouldnt have been as cohesive as it has been all of these years without Taker, but thats behind the scenes stuff and none of us really know what goes on behind the scenes. So what do you guys think? Was Taker really that important to the success of the WWE? Would they have won the Monday Night Wars if he had of jumped ship with the rest in the mid 90s? How would his absence have affected the WWE? Let me know your opinions.