Easy there big guy. How about we are tired of seeing the same guy on top for 10 years, when there are dozens of other guys during that time that haven't been given much of a chance and are way more talented than Cena?
Same things with Reigns. Ambrose, Rollins, Cesaro, Wyatt, Ziggler etc are by far more talented than Reigns, yet Roman is the one who is gonna get the big push. The fans aren't stupid. They realize what is good for their entertainment, and when someone with a backstage decision tends to go against that, they will obviously react.
It seems like you are one of the sheep who will like whoever Vince wants you to like. Wake up, son.
Child please. The only sheep are the clowns like you who think it's cool to boo who the WWE wants you to cheer and cheer those who they want you to boo. You have no credibility when you say somebody is more talented than Cena because you don't even know what talent is. The only thing you care about is what the WWE wants you to do, so you can do the opposite. It has nothing to do with who is deserving or who is talented, it's you wanting to be edgy and cool and different. If WWE started pushing one of those "talented" and "deserving" guys, you'd start crying about how they're "shoved down our throats" and other guys are more deserving. If Cena had been a midcarder for the last 10 years, you'd be screaming about how underutilized he is and how he's never gotten a chance.
You know who gets a chance? People who deserve it. I'm so sick of these idiotic conspiracy theories about backstage politics from you jokers who, apparently, think the WWE just sits down and decides who to push by throwing darts at a dart board or something. They push the people who the fans want to see. It's not rocket science. You think just because you and cute little clique like a certain guy that everybody must like him and the WWE should push them. That's not how it works, kid. Being "talented," whatever warped definition you have of "talented," isn't enough. Being pushed requires a crowd reaction. And I mean a crowd reaction from more than the 10% of fans who care about the same things you do. There's a reason the WWE doesn't pay attention to you clowns, after all. It's because it's a waste of time to try to please fickle morons. They're never going to be happy, and they're not important to the success of the company, so it makes no sense to give them what they want. That's the same reason why the other 90% of fans make fun of you, the same reason why we get sick of your same old crap. You're more predictable than the phases of the moon. If that's not a sheep, I don't know what is.
By the way, serious question: has anybody ever heard the phrase "shoved down our throats" in a context that didn't make the person saying it sound like a complete moron? This isn't specific to any one person here, just in general. Why is it that certain people always feel the need to use such an idiotic phrase to describe something they don't like? Why didn't you complain about Daniel Bryan being "shoved down your throat" at WrestleMania? I didn't see you complaining about Zack Ryder being "shoved down your throat" when he was getting pushed. Was Dolph Ziggler "shoved down your throat" during his title reign? Was Randy Orton "shoved down your throat" when he held the WWE WHC? For some reason, it seems like these are the same people that call others "fanboys" for disagreeing with them about a certain wrestler or "marks" if they disagree with them about decisions. Because, apparently, anybody who disagrees with you is clearly biased and clueless. Because apparently, anybody who disagrees with you must love and support everything the WWE does. Because it's impossible to disagree with your stupid criticisms without having (better) crtiticis of my own, apparently. Just like the WWE is stupid for not doing exactly what you want with every wrestler on the roster and showing you exactly the right amount of every wrestler you personally want to see, regardless of the wishes of the other millions of viewers.
Some people...ugh.
If WWE has the balls to do it, they have Reign turn heel by attacking Daniel Bryan the week that Bryan returns.
WWE could've saved John Cena a lot of boos, at least temporarily, if they'd given him a decent heel run at some point during the last 7-8 years. If he'd turned heel, and done a decent job at it, the anti-Cena fans would've started cheering him, because they're morons like that. Then, when he became face again, he'd still have some good will from those same morons. It wouldn't have stopped the boos forever, but it certainly would've
helped.
And that's what they need to do with Reigns. He's likely going to get booed against anyone who's not Cena or Randy Orton. Which is not good against someone like Lesnar. So Reigns should beat Lesnar, if that's still the plan for Wrestlemania, then turn heel on Daniel Bryan the night after Wrestlemania. People would be totally into that.
This is exactly why it's so foolish to think he should turn heel. He'd go from being cheered by half the crowd and booed by the other half to...being booed by half the crowd and cheered by the other half. At least this way, the half that cheers him are the ones that spend money. The other half(the morons) are too cool to spend money, except on whatever Indy darling is the flavor of the month. It's so funny how they have a new favorite wrestler every month, yet they always act surprised when the WWE doesn't push their guy. Maybe it's because they know his support won't last forever. No, that can't be, that would imply the WWE knows what they're doing more than the armchair booking clowns online.
Seriously though, Roman Reigns turning heel on DB upon his return would be awesome. Although the way you suggest it would be horrible. You can't spend months building up a guy to main event WrestleMania and end the show as the champ, having conquered The Beast...and then turn him heel the next night. If he's as over as he should be to be in that position, that's no time to turn a guy heel. The time to do that would be well before WrestleMania, if his face run isn't going as planned. For example, if Daniel Bryan is able to return for the Royal Rumble, then have him win that, and then have Reigns turn heel on him the next night. Bryan-Reigns would make a great filler feud through Elimination Chamber, before Bryan starts his feud with the champion(Lesnar, I guess, though I'm not a big fan of the idea of him holding the title until WrestleMania, nor am I a fan of Lesnar vs. Bryan) and Roman Reigns can transition to a feud with somebody like John Cena for WrestleMania. If Bryan isn't able to wrestle at the Royal Rumble, but can still come back in time for a match at WrestleMania, a Reigns heel turn against Bryan would be a great way to set up a (non-title) WrestleMania match between the two.
To be more specifically on topic, the lack of support for Reigns doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is what I was saying would happen for most of the Shield's run, and especially after they turned face. Reigns would be the guy who got the big push out of the gate, but ultimately he would be the 3rd biggest star of the group. (Although I thought Rollins would be the big face and Ambrose the big heel, not the other way around.) Reigns has the look, which gets your attention first, but Rollins brings it in the ring and Ambrose's personality is off the charts. Those are the things people stick around for. That's what made The Shield so great, it had all three elements. And Reigns clearly benefitted from that the most. With Rollins and Ambrose next to him, all he had to do what stand there and look cool, look tough, and deliver a few one liners. He was very good at that and people loved to see him do it. Rollins and Ambrose did for Reigns what managers can do, like Paul Heyman has for Lesnar. But he's been overexposed without them, seeing him wrestle solo and cut promos on his own just doesn't have the same appeal. You can tell by the crowd reactions, they're always a lot more excited before he starts talking than they are when he's done.
This is what I've been saying every time people talked about Roman Reigns being the face of the company. That's not who he is. He's not John Cena. He's not Austin, Rock, or Hogan. That's not a knock on the guy, obviously very few people have ever been on that level. If everything falls just right, he could be a good secondary face, a la Batista. Or he could make a good heel. I think we're starting to see fans cool on him as they realize he's not face of the company material. So the WWE will either have to adjust their expectations of him as a face, or turn him heel...might I suggest that he could make a good Paul Heyman guy.
