Now this was touched upon in the first of these two parts (by some psychic individuals) but I wanted to get more opinions on this now that a Raw has passed. There are two sides to this as I have wrote below..
At one point of view, it is that the trio were taken off tv to give Ambrose and Reigns an elevated position on the card and to get involved in the main angle. You could argue that Ziggler and Ryback were both getting bigger reactions than Reigns and Ambrose, and therefore being took off the main shows allows the former Shield members to have a platform to get involved with the main Authority angle and get more tv time. Now if you asked me if this was WWE's reasoning on Sunday I would have said probably yes, given that on Smackdown both were involved in the main event against the Authority in their main guy Rollins and the Big Show. However, after Raw I'm not so sure. Honestly, neither Ambrose nor Reigns came out of Raw looking like they were in a more prominent role. In terms of Reigns, he wasn't punished by the Authority at all. It was as if he hadn't attacked them on Friday, and it was as if him and the Big Show were separate from the main angle itself and doing their own thing. When you consider Ambrose, a case can be made that he possibly has taken Ryback's feud with Rusev from the Big Guy, but the match ended in Rusev winning via an injury to Ambrose and then an awkward cut off. This could mean that it was just a one week thing. If this point of view is correct and that WWE were taking the trio off of tv to further build the two who are 'grabbing the brass ring', then I feel they messed up on the first show to do so.
The second opinion is slightly easier to explain. It's that the Firing Angle wasn't to take the thunder away from Ziggler, Ryback and Rowan, and that it wasn't to just give Reigns and Ambrose a bigger spotlight to shine in. Therefore it means when the fired trio come back they won't be demoted down the card, but instead they'll maintain their spot or even potentially improve their position within the company.
So I ask what are your thoughts on this? Do you believe the firing angle was done to give others a bigger spotlight (namely Reigns and Ambrose) at the expense of Ziggler, Ryback and Rowan? Or are you of the opinion that the three will not be replaced or overtaken by others who get additional screen time in their absence. Let me know please!
At one point of view, it is that the trio were taken off tv to give Ambrose and Reigns an elevated position on the card and to get involved in the main angle. You could argue that Ziggler and Ryback were both getting bigger reactions than Reigns and Ambrose, and therefore being took off the main shows allows the former Shield members to have a platform to get involved with the main Authority angle and get more tv time. Now if you asked me if this was WWE's reasoning on Sunday I would have said probably yes, given that on Smackdown both were involved in the main event against the Authority in their main guy Rollins and the Big Show. However, after Raw I'm not so sure. Honestly, neither Ambrose nor Reigns came out of Raw looking like they were in a more prominent role. In terms of Reigns, he wasn't punished by the Authority at all. It was as if he hadn't attacked them on Friday, and it was as if him and the Big Show were separate from the main angle itself and doing their own thing. When you consider Ambrose, a case can be made that he possibly has taken Ryback's feud with Rusev from the Big Guy, but the match ended in Rusev winning via an injury to Ambrose and then an awkward cut off. This could mean that it was just a one week thing. If this point of view is correct and that WWE were taking the trio off of tv to further build the two who are 'grabbing the brass ring', then I feel they messed up on the first show to do so.
The second opinion is slightly easier to explain. It's that the Firing Angle wasn't to take the thunder away from Ziggler, Ryback and Rowan, and that it wasn't to just give Reigns and Ambrose a bigger spotlight to shine in. Therefore it means when the fired trio come back they won't be demoted down the card, but instead they'll maintain their spot or even potentially improve their position within the company.
So I ask what are your thoughts on this? Do you believe the firing angle was done to give others a bigger spotlight (namely Reigns and Ambrose) at the expense of Ziggler, Ryback and Rowan? Or are you of the opinion that the three will not be replaced or overtaken by others who get additional screen time in their absence. Let me know please!