It's worked for Cena so why not Reigns.
Where did you hear that? Are you saying that three guys with so much to lose, just coming out of developmental and so on, refused the top guy in the WWE? Really.
Oh please don't tell us it was Reddit/
Road to Redemption and Rehabilitation Starts Here.
- Thread starter Navi
- Start date
It's worked for Cena so why not Reigns.
Where did you hear that? Are you saying that three guys with so much to lose, just coming out of developmental and so on, refused the top guy in the WWE? Really.
Oh please don't tell us it was Reddit/
Idk, ask WWE? Because thats why they just moved Reigns to the mid card for the past year. Since you love the WWE creative team so much why don't you ask them?
Read last post kid
Why wouldn't they when they're making shitloads of money with the guy who currently does have half the crowd booing him?
I know you're not aware of how this "proving my point" thing works, like at all, but it involves more than saying "I proved my point, because I think that the company wants this thing!" You actually have to provide an argument demonstrating how your point is proven, rather than just saying it is.
Which usually involves more than providing a video of a guy who gets paid to sell you a story, selling you a story. (But it's real, honest, how on earth would a story about him 'standing up to John Cena' sell him to anyone at all?)
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I didn't hear Cena wanting that. I heard WWE wanting that. Those are two different things, though I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference.
They moved Reigns to the midcard to build him up again after the fiasco of last year. And who said I love the WWE creative department, I am one of their biggest critics here on this forum. So are a lot of other posters. Just because I don't agree with you, and thank God for that, doesn't mean I think their doing a good job.
The last post told me nothing. No link, you could have typed it.
Oh and I watched that video you posted and as usual you spun it to your way of thinking. What Ambrose said was, it was a 6 man tag match. The Shield said no and that was it. The way you put it, Cena was taking them on by himself and was going to pin the lot of them. Stop telling untruths.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Yeah he got Cena confused with CM Punk. The guy that actually did beat them in a 3-1 handicap match.
Punk jobbed to all the part timers and was in mid card hell. He needed a big victory. Besides the real story was the shields breakup not punks victory
Again. Like fucking verbatim:
Alternate explanation: They already have John Cena working in the top slot right now, and have their #2 guy in a position where he's warm and can be quickly elevated should the situation call for it.Rayne said:
You will never get anyone who is universally liked. Daniel Bryan comes close, but even he has his critics. And please provide proof of the backstage politicking.
When most of the main event left, Edge, Batista, HBK, Jericho etc, etc, Cena and Orton where really the only ones remaining. They between them carried this company on their backs. That alone affords them some kind of respect and merit.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I enjoy you trying to politick your way out of this. It's very (allegedly) Cena of you.
And Punk was less than a year removed from the longest World Title reign in 20+ years and had just won at Survivor Series over the Wyatt Family. He was doing quite well on his own.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Exactly as expected.
Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
I like how you're defending Punk, when if it was Cena you'd be using it to support your argument. You're a Punk apologist.
Fell off the horse pages ago. It's fucked in other words.
You wished a serious injury upon John Cena. You don't get to ask us anything. Not until you apologize to John Cena for wishing a terrible injury onto him. He's a human being. How would you like it if someone wished a horrible injury onto you? Now go tell Cena you're sorry. In fact, make your apology to Cena in a new thread and be GENUINE about it.
Really depends on if you see Ryback as a viable main event draw.
I didn't: his ring work wouldn't have sustained a long push. So, no problem with it, really.
Batista wasn't that great either
Batista, even while not great, was noticeably better than Ryback, played his character better than Ryback, and even then, he was really only the #2 guy.
You could argue there were plans to make him the 1, but it never came to be, and he passed in the wayside by Cena.
Ryback would have always had issues with his ring work; don't see how Punk beating him was bad, at all.
Batista could've easily been #1 but Cena polkicked his way through, something Batista would not do. Batista put over the shield and Daniel Bryan 3 ppvs in a row before he left which has earned my respect. In interviews he is also a very intelligent person. Rayne, please don't say those interviews were a "work". Also the fact that Cena beat Batista 3 ppvs Ina row in 2010 just disgusted me. A beautiful heel turn ruined and fed to cena
Wasn't Batista leaving, in 2010?
Also, in what way did Cena politic? Because, I seem to remember Batista getting injured, and injured again, and that left open the chance for Cena to take his mantle.
It wasn't politics, it was that Batista kept getting hurt
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
I heard after Batista got hurt Cena sent Vince a link to WebMD. It was over for Batista from there.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Also Cena was a much better long term prospect, if nothing else due to his age. Cena was 27 when he won his first World Title. Batista was 36, but I'm sure Cena politicked Batista's parents to conceive him earlier.
Similar threads
- Poll
