I can't understand why so many people want Cena vs. Taker. I say let Roman Reigns break The Streak this year. Taker retires and Reigns is cemented forever as a huge star.
Originally posted by Parts UnknownI can't understand why so many people want Cena vs. Taker. I say let Roman Reigns break The Streak this year. Taker retires and Reigns is cemented forever as a huge star.
No.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroYeah IMO this is still the best bet, because without adding Bryan, you still have to run Batista vs. Orton. Remember the futile two-month long effort to get a 50/50 reaction for Cena in Miami? I picture that for Batista.
Seems off to me that the Obvious #1 Contender For The WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Brock Lesnar, is going to transition to a non-title match at Mania. What kind of monkey wrench does Sting throw into this? Is Sting-Taker a real possibility? If so, and if Bryan-HHH is happening, then adding Lesnar to Batista-Orton seems interesting to me. It would soothe the New Orleans shit storm that a singles match would certainly bring down. Lesnar would be de facto face, Batista would be de facto heel, Orton would be de facto invisible.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroYeah IMO this is still the best bet, because without adding Bryan, you still have to run Batista vs. Orton. Remember the futile two-month long effort to get a 50/50 reaction for Cena in Miami? I picture that for Batista.
Seems off to me that the Obvious #1 Contender For The WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Brock Lesnar, is going to transition to a non-title match at Mania. What kind of monkey wrench does Sting throw into this? Is Sting-Taker a real possibility? If so, and if Bryan-HHH is happening, then adding Lesnar to Batista-Orton seems interesting to me. It would soothe the New Orleans shit storm that a singles match would certainly bring down. Lesnar would be de facto face, Batista would be de facto heel, Orton would be de facto invisible.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroYeah IMO this is still the best bet, because without adding Bryan, you still have to run Batista vs. Orton. Remember the futile two-month long effort to get a 50/50 reaction for Cena in Miami? I picture that for Batista.
Seems off to me that the Obvious #1 Contender For The WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Brock Lesnar, is going to transition to a non-title match at Mania. What kind of monkey wrench does Sting throw into this? Is Sting-Taker a real possibility? If so, and if Bryan-HHH is happening, then adding Lesnar to Batista-Orton seems interesting to me. It would soothe the New Orleans shit storm that a singles match would certainly bring down. Lesnar would be de facto face, Batista would be de facto heel, Orton would be de facto invisible.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroYeah IMO this is still the best bet, because without adding Bryan, you still have to run Batista vs. Orton. Remember the futile two-month long effort to get a 50/50 reaction for Cena in Miami? I picture that for Batista.
Seems off to me that the Obvious #1 Contender For The WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Brock Lesnar, is going to transition to a non-title match at Mania. What kind of monkey wrench does Sting throw into this? Is Sting-Taker a real possibility? If so, and if Bryan-HHH is happening, then adding Lesnar to Batista-Orton seems interesting to me. It would soothe the New Orleans shit storm that a singles match would certainly bring down. Lesnar would be de facto face, Batista would be de facto heel, Orton would be de facto invisible.
Hey, friends, if all you're going to do is add a one line retort to the post above, please stop hitting the quote link. Please stop hitting the quote link in general, the reply link to the left wants your love too.
Originally posted by thecubsfanHey, friends, if all you're going to do is add a one line retort to the post above, please stop hitting the quote link. Please stop hitting the quote link in general, the reply link to the left wants your love too.
You're a moderator and all, but I'd like to vote against your comment "please stop hitting the quote link in general." Perhaps the exchange above (of which I was part) overdid it, but the quote function in general makes it MUCH easier to follow various conversations within the same thread.
Originally posted by HokienauticYou're a moderator and all, but I'd like to vote against your comment "please stop hitting the quote link in general." Perhaps the exchange above (of which I was part) overdid it, but the quote function in general makes it MUCH easier to follow various conversations within the same thread.
I think a better idea than "don't use the quote button" is "use it but edit out all the stuff you're not actually replying to." However, when you're dealing with messages inside messages inside messages, that can be tricky to do without messing everything up. Now, I'm not *saying* that Cubs thinks that some of you aren't up to the task... I'm just saying that some of you aren't up to the task.
(previews reply like 5 times before posting to prevent ironic broken quote)
Originally posted by KJames199 I think a better idea than "don't use the quote button" is "use it but edit out all the stuff you're not actually replying to." However, when you're dealing with messages inside messages inside messages, that can be tricky to do without messing everything up. Now, I'm not *saying* that Cubs thinks that some of you aren't up to the task... I'm just saying that some of you aren't up to the task.
(previews reply like 5 times before posting to prevent ironic broken quote)
I've been on other boards where the default is set to ONLY quote the one specific post you click quote for -- no nested quotes at all. I wonder if that's an option that can be clicked/checked here?
Quotes are normally fine and help, but the usage where I'm scrolling the length of a screen (or twice) rereading the last post for a single line is not the best use of it. I didn't mean to call anyone out, I've noticed it a few places lately.
Originally posted by Hokienautic I've been on other boards where the default is set to ONLY quote the one specific post you click quote for -- no nested quotes at all. I wonder if that's an option that can be clicked/checked here?
We'd have to write it, and I don't see that happening unless CRZ gets a wild hair to do it.
Originally posted by thecubsfanQuotes are normally fine and help, but the usage where I'm scrolling the length of a screen (or twice) rereading the last post for a single line is not the best use of it. I didn't mean to call anyone out, I've noticed it a few places lately.
I didn't feel called out -- normally I do try to quote only what I'm referring to. I was talking just about the comment re: not using the quote feature as a general practice.
The only way they can get round this Bryan... er... 'situation', is if he wins the strap at Elimination Chamber & defends against Dave Batista one on one at Wrestle-Mania. It's not ideal as I'd rather he have actually won the strap at Wrestle-Mania as I've mentioned in my other posts on here, but I'm willing to accept that particular ship has sailed. They've made their bed, they need to lie in it & do what they can to make it work.
Besides, any attempt now to wiggle Daniel Bryan in as challenger would feel contrived & kill the idea of the Royal Rumble being a big deal, especially now there's only one world title. Also, a potential three way doesn't pique my interest either, I'd rather Randy Orton drop the strap to Daniel Bryan at Elimination Chamber thanks to interference from Brock Lesnar (or CM Punk?????) in a nice little flip reverse call back to No Way Out 2004. (I know about his rematch clause, he can always use that on Raw rather than WM)
Which nicely sets up Randy Orton vs. Brock Lesnar, which in my mind is a much more interesting match up than Orton/Batista or Taker/Lesnar.
As an aside, I don't know how they'd do it without breaking the fourth wall, but somehow they ***need*** to utilize this so called 'iron clad contract' that Batista (maybe) has as an on screen plot device. After all, it does seem to add an element of fourth-wall-breaking intrigue that Bryan really has got the odds stacked against him here, even if he went in as champion.
Bryan and Orton can tie at Elimination Chamber to set up a threeway, or some such Triple H/Scott Armstrong nonsense. Bryan was illegally prohibited from the Rumble so he has a constitutional right to the Mania title shot.
Here are two scenarios that don't entail junking the whole card, which I wouldn't mind either. One is they stick with Batista vs. Orton and leave it to its fate, while Bryan slides in for Punk and wrestles Triple H. To make it easy, I'll guarantee that Bryan knees HHH in the damn face and pins him, then goes on to win the title at Extreme Rules in Seattle. The other is they put Bryan in the title match, leaving Triple H to wrestle the dude who's coming in yet seemingly has little of importance to do for Wrestlemania. This is Sting.
I guess either one works for me. Triple H is one of the better choices to carry a Sting match, plus if it sucks, big deal, lots of HHH's Mania matches suck. Unless it's against Daniel Bryan, who would probably have a better match with Triple H than a threeway with Batista and Orton. But personally I'd rather see Bryan win the title for THE MUSIC THE MOMENT at Wrestlemania. And no hole in the card when your world title match is treated as sub-Del Rio/Swagger. Plus the awkward parallel with Wrestlemania 20, fan's choice underdog worker vs. Clique dude vs. Clique dude, and Batista and Orton sharing a look to put Bryan through a table so they can settle their rivalry once and for all, and that sequence getting resoundingly booed.
I'm not fond of them delaying the win by one month. I don't think this is comparable to the Rock/Backlash 2000 situation. Rock had already been an established champion by that point, & was booked incredibly strong in the 6 months leading to mania. The eyes of the world were still on WWE following Wrestle-Mania. The product back then wasn't quite as Wrestle-Mania centric as it is now.
It's lightning in a bottle with Bryan, & I fear if they miss it, it's gone.
''word is that it was pitched in a creative meeting this past week to have Bryan win the WWE World Heavyweight Title inside the Elimination Chamber and then go on to defend it against Batista and WrestleMania XXX. A source says that Vince McMahon was “having none of it” when the idea was brought up.''
If true, either he's against Bryan having the belt full stop UNTIL HE SAYS SO DAMMIT, or he simply thinks it's more logical for the babyface to win the title on the big stage rather than a month before.
And if the latter is the case then WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE BRYAN WIN THE RUMBLE.
The thing is, trolling the fans eventually leads to the fans revolting more or just tuning out. They can't do this wink and nudge with this shit. Its past the point of being cute.
Steven is correct, Backlash 2000 in Seattle is too late. That Backlash is referred as Backlash: The Apology for how badly they fucked up Mania. I don't think the Mania crowd who spent a large chunk of cash is going to sit quietly. I am actually curious to see how many tickets are going to be on Stub Hub or if Vince will be forced to paper the crowd?
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
First time I've caught Smackdown in a while. It's frightening how much Bradshaw now looks like Will Ferrell. The main event was so damn good I can't believe it was on free TV.