Reigns Main Events WM 31 and Loses

[wrestler36]

Countless topics here about Reigns being 'not ready, too green, not charismatic enough, etc' to be the face of WWE. Ultimately it's Vince's decision and even though his latest injury is a drawback, his ascension is undeniable. So let's say he's not quite ready yet but main events anyway against Brock Lesnar or whomever. And he loses the match. Is it really that big of a deal? I know everybody wants that WM 'moment' but then it makes the outcome of every WM main event predictable. Would he lose much steam? I don't think so. Heck Daniel Bryan got brogue kicked as world champion at WM and lost in like 11 seconds. His losing the main event could be the major storyline for WM 32 as a redemption match, or against somebody who beat Lesnar and that Reigns couldn't the year before, etc.

So what do you think. Would it be bad if Reigns main events next year's Wrestlemania, but comes up short?

 

[MC_Live]

Yes, it would be a problem. There's a difference between big wins, and just big moments. Daniel Bryan had a big win at WrestleMania XXX. That helped push him further along in his career, and will hopefully carry over when he returns. Compare that to say, Booker T who only had a big moment at WrestleMania XIX. Do people remember it? Yeah, but not nearly as much as if he would have won. Booker T never really reached the level of popularity he had going in to the match afterwards. Even if Reigns isn't in the WWE Championship match, he needs to win at WrestleMania. Being his first singles match at Mania, this is going to be a big moment. And whether he wins or not will play a big factor in to his momentum moving forward.

And you want to look at the predictability of WrestleMania main events? The baby face should always win the Main Event of Mania. Always. That's just how it goes. Look at the amount of times the heel has won at WrestleMania, and how many times it really worked. Triple H at WrestleMania 2000, and The Miz at WrestleMania XXVII. Does anybody (not named The Miz) ever talk about those much? No. Because the heel going over in the Main Event is just not a story people want to see at WrestleMania. It just won't feel right if it happens. Those are both reasons why Roman Reigns should do anything BUT lose the Main Event Title Match at WrestleMania.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Yes, it would be a problem. There's a difference between big wins, and just big moments. Daniel Bryan had a big win at WrestleMania XXX. That helped push him further along in his career, and will hopefully carry over when he returns. Compare that to say, Booker T who only had a big moment at WrestleMania XIX. Do people remember it? Yeah, but not nearly as much as if he would have won. Booker T never really reached the level of popularity he had going in to the match afterwards. Even if Reigns isn't in the WWE Championship match, he needs to win at WrestleMania. Being his first singles match at Mania, this is going to be a big moment. And whether he wins or not will play a big factor in to his momentum moving forward.

And you want to look at the predictability of WrestleMania main events? The baby face should always win the Main Event of Mania. Always. That's just how it goes. Look at the amount of times the heel has won at WrestleMania, and how many times it really worked. Triple H at WrestleMania 2000, and The Miz at WrestleMania XXVII. Does anybody (not named The Miz) ever talk about those much? No. Because the heel going over in the Main Event is just not a story people want to see at WrestleMania. It just won't feel right if it happens. Those are both reasons why Roman Reigns should do anything BUT lose the Main Event Title Match at WrestleMania.

You forgot to mention "Stone Cold" Steve Austin winning at WMX7 AS A HEEL! I felt that that was pretty memorable.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Look at the amount of times the heel has won at WrestleMania, and how many times it really worked. Triple H at WrestleMania 2000, and The Miz at WrestleMania XXVII. Does anybody (not named The Miz) ever talk about those much? No. Because the heel going over in the Main Event is just not a story people want to see at WrestleMania.

I would argue that Ted DiBiase should have won the title at WrestleMania 4 and Randy Orton should have won at WrestleMania 25. I felt that Savage was robbed of a proper title chase. It was a great moment, but I would've preferred Ted stealing the win and Savage getting the title later. As for WM25, there was no point in giving Triple H the win. The crowd was just robbed of the title change that would occur 3 weeks later. I really hate when they do that. They give you a winner and then they pretty much retcon it in a few weeks. They did the same with Cena/Miz. Miz's heel win at WrestleMania would have been far more important if he kept the title until SummerSlam.

It just won't feel right if it happens. Those are both reasons why Roman Reigns should do anything BUT lose the Main Event Title Match at WrestleMania.

I think it depends completely on the story. In my opinion, building up Roman as the next hero who's gonna take down Brock Lesnar, having him booked very strongly as if his win is pretty much guaranteed and then just have him get SQUASHED Cena-style in 10 minutes is a great story. It would shock the crowd, and it will make Brock look strong when he eventually loses the title to someone he has already beaten. That last part is important because I think it's ridiculous to book Brock having a reign of terror on Raw when Roman could beat him at any moment and the only reason he doesn't is because he just doesn't care yet. I think it's best if they have Roman stand up to Brock, fail to beat him, and then start his redemption story.

HOWEVER, I think that is much better suited for Survivor Series. I'd love it if everyone on the internet was sure that Roman was beating Brock at SS, and then Brock pounced him. Then Heyman can keep cutting on promos about how Roman can't cut it, and his redemption ends up leading to Roman winning the Rumble and challenging Brock 1 more time.

And when Roman wins at Mania, they can have a rubber match at Extreme Rules. Brock won't look like such a loser to lose twice to Roman because he's made him his bitch before. But I agree with you that the angle isn't suited for WrestleMania, since the contender is supposed to be hyped up since January.

 

[Navi]

Yea but we're all forgetting about the reality of this situation. According the the reports, he may be out for minimum 4-6 weeks and might be as long as three months. I've read the reports, and they are all pretty much saying the same thing. According the the doctors there is no physio therapy for this, it just takes time for it to heal. Now Reigns is a big strong guy, but this isn't a broken arm or leg, it's an internal injury.

He can't even apparently start training again until it's pretty much healed. Let's face it, 3 months out of the ring, at this time of the year, with the run up to Mania could be the death knell to him winning next year. He isn't even is a feud right now, only the remnants of the Ambrose/Rollins storyline, and that's only till Ambrose comes back. In that storyline, he's been cast as a supporting player.

They won't have time to give him a build to anything worthwhile before Mania, they have to start it now not wait another 3 months. And who the hell are they going to get to replace him, he was supposed to be the so called golden boy.

I totally feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see him winning a title at next year's Mania, maybe the following year in Dallas, but who knows what will happen between now and then.

 

[L@RISANO]

Yea but we're all forgetting about the reality of this situation. According the the reports, he may be out for minimum 4-6 weeks and might be as long as three months. I've read the reports, and they are all pretty much saying the same thing. According the the doctors there is no physio therapy for this, it just takes time for it to heal. Now Reigns is a big strong guy, but this isn't a broken arm or leg, it's an internal injury.

He can't even apparently start training again until it's pretty much healed. Let's face it, 3 months out of the ring, at this time of the year, with the run up to Mania could be the death knell to him winning next year. He isn't even is a feud right now, only the remnants of the Ambrose/Rollins storyline, and that's only till Ambrose comes back. In that storyline, he's been cast as a supporting player.

They won't have time to give him a build to anything worthwhile before Mania, they have to start it now not wait another 3 months. And who the hell are they going to get to replace him, he was supposed to be the so called golden boy.

I totally feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see him winning a title at next year's Mania, maybe the following year in Dallas, but who knows what will happen between now and then.

I think if anything, assuming he does require a 3 months layoff(give or take), then the Lesnar match might become unlikely for Mania. However, he could end up in a hot return to finally finish up the Authority once and for all, with a Mania match vs Triple H instead.


At the end of the day, the likes of Reigns, Rollins and Ambrose are all 30 and under stars, who will be here for the long term. Through the Shield's run, fans have been exposed enough to know their talent and get behind them through an obviously successful run as that Trio, so whilst his momentum in terms of getting the title could be in danger(assuming this doesn't turn out to be a work), I think there is ample time for not only Reigns, but Rollins and Ambrose to eventually get World title runs within the next couple of years.


What the WWE has to do, is make sure that when these guys get their hands on the title, it is greeted with the desired reactions and isn't forced. That will be the key,lMO.

 

[Mudlup50]

And Navi brings up a good point, he might be out for longer than that. Say he's out for just 3 months. That'd put his return right at TLC? So what he makes a run in saving someone? He won't be ready to main event Mania then! We can pretty much promise that. Here's a scenario I know the IWC has been loving: Ambrose takes his spot.

Ambrose v Rollins at TLC = Ambrose, this sets up Ambrose as a major player
Up to the Royal Rumble, Ambrose messes with the Authority again saying no one in the Authority can beat him
Ambrose wins the Rumble to head to Wrestlemania
Then you can slide Reigns and Rollins into a feud. Picture Rollins telling Ambrose he shouldn't even try to win, because if he could, haha, he'd lose the belt immediately when I cash in my MitB briefcase. Then Reigns says no, I got your back Ambrose. I could see EC having a tag match Ambrose/Reigns v Lesnar/Rollins

Of course they could always give Bryan another Wrestlemania moment. If he returns to a huge ovation like we think, he'd deserve the belt back but I personally worry about his neck.

Or I'll of course say this, Punk could return. An idea, not pushing for it but it's a possibility.

After that what choices do they have? No one else is built to that level yet :/ Cesaro was on a losing streak, Bray loses most important matches...let's see how this plays out

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Of course they could always give Bryan another Wrestlemania moment. If he returns to a huge ovation like we think, he'd deserve the belt back but I personally worry about his neck.

Or I'll of course say this, Punk could return. An idea, not pushing for it but it's a possibility.

After that what choices do they have?

Your time is up /
My time is now.
You can't see me! /
My time is now!

They could easily prepare Cena for a redemption story where he FINALLY GETS HIS REVENGE ON BROCK LESNAR!!

 

[King502]

Brock vs roman at mania 31 will only be good if brock wins otherwise that jabroni (who is sick right now hope he gets better soon) is not ready

 

[MC_Live]

You forgot to mention "Stone Cold" Steve Austin winning at WMX7 AS A HEEL! I felt that that was pretty memorable.

Didn't forget. Purposely failed to mention. Sure, it was a memorable moment. But what happened to the storyline afterwards? Austin's heel run fell flat. He says it himself, if he could have a do over, he would have stunned Vince and left Mania as a face.
And for NegativeFeedback...

I would argue that Ted DiBiase should have won the title at WrestleMania 4 and Randy Orton should have won at WrestleMania 25. I felt that Savage was robbed of a proper title chase. It was a great moment, but I would've preferred Ted stealing the win and Savage getting the title later. As for WM25, there was no point in giving Triple H the win. The crowd was just robbed of the title change that would occur 3 weeks later. I really hate when they do that. They give you a winner and then they pretty much retcon it in a few weeks. They did the same with Cena/Miz. Miz's heel win at WrestleMania would have been far more important if he kept the title until SummerSlam.

These are different situations. I can't say much about WrestleMania IV. As far as I'm concerned, that looks pretty good to me the way it is in the history books. As for the others, they're peculiar situations. Neither story was carried out perfectly, but they were what they were. Maybe Orton should have won the WWE Title at 25, and that may have worked. Just switch out the main event. As far as The Miz goes, yeah they flubbed his title swap too. But what is there to expect from that match. It didn't happen because it needed to happen. All that match did was serve as a stepping stone for the Rock to return. But that's a different story.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Didn't forget. Purposely failed to mention. Sure, it was a memorable moment. But what happened to the storyline afterwards? Austin's heel run fell flat. He says it himself, if he could have a do over, he would have stunned Vince and left Mania as a face.
And for NegativeFeedback...



These are different situations. I can't say much about WrestleMania IV. As far as I'm concerned, that looks pretty good to me the way it is in the history books. As for the others, they're peculiar situations. Neither story was carried out perfectly, but they were what they were. Maybe Orton should have won the WWE Title at 25, and that may have worked. Just switch out the main event. As far as The Miz goes, yeah they flubbed his title swap too. But what is there to expect from that match. It didn't happen because it needed to happen. All that match did was serve as a stepping stone for the Rock to return. But that's a different story.

I heard opposite with Austin at the time.

He embraced playing a heel, as it added new depth to his character. If he didn't like it, he would have walked out. If he didn't like it, he wouldn't have played it to the hilt.

SCSA found a new lease of life as a heel. It added to his character, and gave him something different to do, and new opponents to fight. He had done it all as a face, and Austin going to the "dark side" opened a world of possibilities. Too bad they didn't explore them all, but I think it added years to his character, which was starting to get stale.

In fact, Austin only walked out only AFTER he turned face again. At the time, there was the word around that Austin didn't want to go face less than a year after his heel turn, and felt that his reasons for going face didn't make sense (why couldn't he still be a heel, even after the Alliance storyline was over).

The main reason Austin went face again was that the fans still cheered Austin, and the freshness of his character made him hot to the fans again, so WWE rush-turned him face, with little reason.

A lot of people didn't like Austin going heel, but at Wrestlemania, against the Rock, it meant something. It needed to happen, and Austin was ripe for change.

In fact, maybe WWE should have used this as a template for Cena- have Cena turn heel on the Rock at Wrestlemania. Maybe the fact that the Rock is less popular now, and the WWE's false belief that it hurts their merchandise sales (despite the fact that Austin merchandise still sold when he was heel) means that Cena has gotten stale, rather than refresh him with a much-needed heel turn.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

These are different situations. I can't say much about WrestleMania IV. As far as I'm concerned, that looks pretty good to me the way it is in the history books.

Randy Savage played second-fiddle to Hulk Hogan for a whole year. I think it would've been better if Randy chased the title for a few months, won it at SummerSlam and then lost it to Hogan at WrestleMania. Ted would have gotten a really deserving World title reign out of it too.

As for the others, they're peculiar situations. Neither story was carried out perfectly, but they were what they were. Maybe Orton should have won the WWE Title at 25, and that may have worked. Just switch out the main event.

Why switch out the main event? Even though Taker/Shawn was a spectacular match, it had next-to-no story and no consequences. It wouldn't have made any sense as a main event. Cena/Edge/Show could have main evented, but that would have been a cop out. The idea was that they were going to push Randy as the top heel on Raw. They should've had him beat Triple H clean in the main event to accomplish that. Randy wins, celebrates with Legacy, and Triple H chases him out of the ring. That's how it should've ended. There's no need to end it with a face win that nobody wanted to see anyway.

As far as The Miz goes, yeah they flubbed his title swap too. But what is there to expect from that match. It didn't happen because it needed to happen. All that match did was serve as a stepping stone for the Rock to return. But that's a different story.

They should've had Cena beat Miz at Mania. Then you tease Rock raising Cena's hand and pander to the crowd. The crowd thinks this is the extent of Rock's role... He won't be wrestling, he just came to raise Cena's hand and "pass the torch". But then he swerves us with a Rock Bottom! I'm happy for Miz that he got a big win at WrestleMania, but if the idea was that Cena was going to become champion anyway, they should have done it there.

 

[Rusty]

Why switch out the main event? Even though Taker/Shawn was a spectacular match, it had next-to-no story and no consequences. It wouldn't have made any sense as a main event. Cena/Edge/Show could have main evented, but that would have been a cop out. The idea was that they were going to push Randy as the top heel on Raw. They should've had him beat Triple H clean in the main event to accomplish that. Randy wins, celebrates with Legacy, and Triple H chases him out of the ring. That's how it should've ended. There's no need to end it with a face win that nobody wanted to see anyway.

This is where I have a problem.

Wrestlemania is the biggest pay per view of the year, therefore it is the most watched wrestling show of the year, therefore more money gets thrown in the company as people are hoping for a happy ending, therefore a babyface should always come out on top at least in one of the two or three main events, but almost certainly as the last match on the card. (I love my therefore's).

Why do you watch a movie? So the good characters can die and evil celebrates the victory? If you do... you're a pretty cold person. You should probably also see a psychologist.

As MUCH as Randy was in fine form back then, he shouldn't have won the match. He, from memory, handcuffed him to the ropes while brutalising Triple H's wife. He also put his father-in-law in hospital.. if he won on the biggest stage of the year... why in the holy hell would ANYONE order another pay per view again, especially after the bad guy won the biggest match that mattered.

I've never understood the common smark obsession with heels. Mysterio gets booed for putting his body on the line, but Brock Lesnar could belt the crap out of a person with a disability and he'd still have smarks all over him.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

This is where I have a problem.

Wrestlemania is the biggest pay per view of the year, therefore it is the most watched wrestling show of the year, therefore more money gets thrown in the company as people are hoping for a happy ending, therefore a babyface should always come out on top at least in one of the two or three main events, but almost certainly as the last match on the card. (I love my therefore's).

Why do you watch a movie? So the good characters can die and evil celebrates the victory? If you do... you're a pretty cold person. You should probably also see a psychologist.

As MUCH as Randy was in fine form back then, he shouldn't have won the match. He, from memory, handcuffed him to the ropes while brutalising Triple H's wife. He also put his father-in-law in hospital.. if he won on the biggest stage of the year... why in the holy hell would ANYONE order another pay per view again, especially after the bad guy won the biggest match that mattered.

I've never understood the common smark obsession with heels. Mysterio gets booed for putting his body on the line, but Brock Lesnar could belt the crap out of a person with a disability and he'd still have smarks all over him.

My problem with the way they did it is that they gave him his comeuppance at the big show, and then they had him win the title 3 weeks later anyway. That completely devalues the loss. The guy is champion and he's ruling Monday Night War and getting the fans to hate his reign of terror, and it's like the WrestleMania loss never happened. Losing doesn't mean anything when you're going to act like it never happened just a month later.

I'm fine with Randy losing if the long-term plan was for him not to be booked the same as if he would have won. But since they were going to go with booking "the Age of Orton" anyway, they might as well have done it at WrestleMania.

WrestleMania is just as much a "season premiere" as it is a "season finale". It hasn't been seen as the "final chapter" in a long time. Almost every main event coming out of WrestleMania happens again on the following PPV. If they booked it correctly, Randy winning at WrestleMania would have riled up the fans so they can eventually see him get his comeuppance. Instead, they saw him get his comeuppance and then saw him act like that comeuppance didn't matter in the least. That's WWE's way of telling you that those feelings you got of happiness and redemption when you saw him lose at WrestleMania were completely foolish and short-sighted, and you're dumb for thinking it meant naything.

That's not how it should be. WrestleMania should be the definitive spot where stories matter. If Ryback loses at WrestleMania, it's a huge blow, and he shouldn't be winning title shots the next night. If The Miz retained the title, he should ride on the momentum of that huge win for months. And if Randy Orton lost at WrestleMania, he should be booked like someone who lost his chance.

 

[Rusty]

My problem with the way they did it is that they gave him his comeuppance at the big show, and then they had him win the title 3 weeks later anyway. That completely devalues the loss. The guy is champion and he's ruling Monday Night War and getting the fans to hate his reign of terror, and it's like the WrestleMania loss never happened. Losing doesn't mean anything when you're going to act like it never happened just a month later.

Isn't that better? The guy who LOST the main event of Wrestlemania, the guy you claimed should have won, ended up coming out looking better than his competitor? Sure beats being buried I believe.

I'm fine with Randy losing if the long-term plan was for him not to be booked the same as if he would have won. But since they were going to go with booking "the Age of Orton" anyway, they might as well have done it at WrestleMania.

But Wrestlemania is the one night where heels get their comeuppance. The Age of Orton still lived on, everybody won (except those watching that terrible match).

WrestleMania is just as much a "season premiere" as it is a "season finale". It hasn't been seen as the "final chapter" in a long time. Almost every main event coming out of WrestleMania happens again on the following PPV. If they booked it correctly, Randy winning at WrestleMania would have riled up the fans so they can eventually see him get his comeuppance.

Lol, so I guess Daniel Bryan's WM 30 win was just the beginning... even though the story started in Summerslam the year before. Also, I just explained why he had to lose on that night. Wrestlemania was the night the fans wanted to see Orton get his ass kicked.

Instead, they saw him get his comeuppance and then saw him act like that comeuppance didn't matter in the least. That's WWE's way of telling you that those feelings you got of happiness and redemption when you saw him lose at WrestleMania were completely foolish and short-sighted, and you're dumb for thinking it meant naything.

The WWE knew what a valuable asset he was at the time, if he was buried, who would have stepped up to face Triple H at the time?

That's not how it should be. WrestleMania should be the definitive spot where stories matter. If Ryback loses at WrestleMania, it's a huge blow, and he shouldn't be winning title shots the next night. If The Miz retained the title, he should ride on the momentum of that huge win for months. And if Randy Orton lost at WrestleMania, he should be booked like someone who lost his chance.

But smarks complain about superstars being buried. As soon as a heel loses, it's the end of the world. Take Bray Wyatt loss to Cena a few weeks back. If Reigns main events Wrestlemania, as a face, he has to win. No ifs or buts. Because as I already stated many times, the main event at Wrestlemania is the one than fans actually remember, and it's the one that actually matters.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

But Wrestlemania is the one night where heels get their comeuppance. The Age of Orton still lived on, everybody won (except those watching that terrible match).

That used to be true, but plenty of heels now win at WrestleMania. Guys like Kane, Mark Henry, Jericho, Orton, Miz and others have come out on the winning at Mania and getting their comeuppance later on. That's the correct way to go about it, because every heel getting his comeuppance would be boring and predictable.

Lol, so I guess Daniel Bryan's WM 30 win was just the beginning... even though the story started in Summerslam the year before. Also, I just explained why he had to lose on that night. Wrestlemania was the night the fans wanted to see Orton get his ass kicked.

In general, fans will always want a heel to get his comeuppance. But you delay it so the eventual satisfaction is sweeter. Randy began his "Anti-McMahon" storyline the Raw before the Rumble. There was only 2 PPVs where he came off looking strong, and one wasn't even in the main event. Orton continuing his mean streak for a few more months would have led to a much sweeter redemption at a later PPV.

The WWE knew what a valuable asset he was at the time, if he was buried, who would have stepped up to face Triple H at the time?

They shouldn't book a finish and then try and come up with a story to follow it up. They should have their stories in mind and then book the matches leading up to it accordingly. If they wanted an Age of Orton, then Randy should have won, and shocked people like you who were hoping to see the heel lose. It would have been a Brock/Cena SummerSlam ending a few years earlier and it would have been great.

But if he was going to lose, it should have been because they already have a story in mind. He could feud with the returning Batista while Triple H dropped began to feud with someone else. He could get his big win later, but not until the effects of his loss at Mania had affected his trajectory. By winning the title 3 weeks later anyway, it cheapens the development at the big show.

But smarks complain about superstars being buried. As soon as a heel loses, it's the end of the world. Take Bray Wyatt loss to Cena a few weeks back. If Reigns main events Wrestlemania, as a face, he has to win. No ifs or buts. Because as I already stated many times, the main event at Wrestlemania is the one than fans actually remember, and it's the one that actually matters.

I think more people have a problem with Bray Wyatt losing more than his trajectory after the loss. His trajectory makes complete sense. He lost the biggest fight he's ever picked, and he's now directionless. Had he won though, it would have spiraled him to new heights. Cena could have won the title at MitB anyway since it was a big multi-man match and Bray would still come out looking strong. I still think Bray should've won that feud, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[kadroan]

What if Reigns defeats Lesnar in a hard fought match but Rollins cashes in on him?

I could see fans getting behind Reigns and Rollins become the #1 heel in the company. Hopefully Brock has his contract extended before WrestleMania so the crowd won't think he's leaving after the match.

 

[L@RISANO]

What if Reigns defeats Lesnar in a hard fought match but Rollins cashes in on him?

I could see fans getting behind Reigns and Rollins become the #1 heel in the company. Hopefully Brock has his contract extended before WrestleMania so the crowd won't think he's leaving after the match.

I've been banging on about that scenario for quite a while now. If the WWE are serious about pushing the Shield guys to the top, then having Reigns defeat the Beast and then have Rollins cash-in would be perfect going forward.

Just have to do it in a way that Dean Ambrose can get involved and maybe plan for a Triple threat Shield match at SummerSlam 2015.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Ultimately it's Vince's decision and even though his latest injury is a drawback, his ascension is undeniable.

Yes, it's undeniable.....and what's going to happen next April might depend on when Roman gets back and how excited Vince is going to be about it.

On the one hand, maybe the time out will make management cool on Reigns and force him to work his way up the ladder again; certainly not from the bottom rung, but his time off might at least drop him in status from his latest achievement: cleanly defeating Randy Orton at Summerslam. You've got to be pretty high up in the organization before you get to do that.

Or, perhaps McMahon & Co. will be so excited at the prospect of Reigns coming out of nowhere (they can write the script and keep Reigns off TV a little longer than is necessary to make it seem that way) that the guy shows up at WM31, fights in the title match.....and takes the whole shebang.

Whatever direction they choose, they might as well use the return of Roman Reigns to maximum effect from a storyline point of view......which will translate to what happens in the ring.

April is a long way off.....and lots can happen between now & then.

 

[kadroan]

I've been banging on about that scenario for quite a while now. If the WWE are serious about pushing the Shield guys to the top, then having Reigns defeat the Beast and then have Rollins cash-in would be perfect going forward.

Just have to do it in a way that Dean Ambrose can get involved and maybe plan for a Triple threat Shield match at SummerSlam 2015.

Fall 2014 - Ambrose finishes his feud with Rollins, feuds with Orton at the top of 2015 and face HHH at WrestleMania.

Rollins and Reigns can feud through MITB and Ambrose wins MITB and cashes in on the winner. Nobody has cashed in since Kane