Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Monday Night RAW: March 20th, 2017

  1. #81
    Reality Champ
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6,700
    Quote Originally Posted by phemom View Post
    I don't think Taker has healed from the hip surgery and it's showing. I'm super curious how he's gonna bump for Roman's offense...because other than the Superman Punch everything else demands a lot of movement and jumping... and it doesn't look like Taker can do either right now.
    More and more I'm legitimately expecting this to be a squash match. It would be what's best for Roman to kick off a heel turn, and it might be the only thing that Taker can do.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,197
    I'm thinking Undertaker wins at Wrestlemania, then declares the yard belongs to Roman on Raw.

    I can't see WWE letting Roman being a real heel. It runs a risk of not being able to sell Reigns' vests at $50 a pop at shows.

  3. #83
    Reality Champ
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Section ( 8 ) View Post
    I'm thinking Undertaker wins at Wrestlemania, then declares the yard belongs to Roman on Raw.

    I can't see WWE letting Roman being a real heel. It runs a risk of not being able to sell Reigns' vests at $50 a pop at shows.
    It's 50/50. He's been ramping up his dickness the past few weeks. He's acting like a complete asshole towards two of the most beloved people in wrestling in Taker and Shawn Michaels. It's either a heel turn, or Vince simply thinks that it would make him look like a tough guy. Could go either way.

  4. #84
    I beat up Kong! Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,321
    The feud between Strowman and Reigns is clearly not over. With Taker choke slamming Strowman last night and the way that Strowman "hates" Reigns is there anyway that we get another triple threat OR interference from Strowman?

    Strowman coming down attacking both guys but destroying Reigns more, then Taker chokeslamming Strowman again, then Tombstoning Reigns for the win.

    Possible?

  5. #85
    Don't WHAT? Me.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Little Caesars Arena
    Posts
    4,525
    Isn't the goal still Roman beating Brock? Are we supposed to root for the part time champ at the Summerfest?

  6. #86
    Broken Kleck Kleckamania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    DELETE!!
    Posts
    2,886
    When you think about it, why would they make months long fanfare for a Taker retirement? It kind of kills the mystique of the character, and telegraphs the match outcome. I mean we all want the finalization, and he deserves the fanfare, but based on the character, truly, should we ever expect that?


    And Undertaker is every bit as much of a product of WCW as Stone Cold was. Or are we forgetting Mean Mark? Well Stunning Steve was a much different character too.


    There's zero chance Taker wins here. Most of us guessed the last year of Lesnar's contract was the year Reigns went over. That year starts the day after Wrestlemania. Vince never waivered, but fan sentiment did drive them to make a quasi heel out of him.

  7. #87
    I beat up Kong! Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,321
    Quote Originally Posted by phemom View Post
    Isn't the goal still Roman beating Brock? Are we supposed to root for the part time champ at the Summerfest?
    The early reports are that we are getting Lesnar vs Reigns at WM34. So why would you also have Lesnar vs Reigns for the title at Summerslam? My guess is that we get Lesnar vs Owens and Lesnar vs Strowman after Mania. Where Lesnar loses the title somewhere before the Rumble, then Lesnar wins it back at the Rumble and Reigns *gasp* wins the Rumble once again to face and finally beat Lesnar at WM34.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kleckamania View Post
    And Undertaker is every bit as much of a product of WCW as Stone Cold was. Or are we forgetting Mean Mark? Well Stunning Steve was a much different character too.
    Not really. "Mean Mark" Callous was only in WCW for about a year, had had very limited success. He had a nice run, but nothing spectacular, and The Mean Mark days had little to no impact on "The Undertaker" with the exception of some moves.

    Steve Austin had a 5 year run in WCW where he won the TV Title, was a member of the Dangerous Alliance, The Hollywood Blondes as a Tag Champion, a member of the Stud Stable, and then a United States Champion. Austin had a very successful 5 year run in WCW regardless of how it ended.

    So Mean Mark yes, was a member of WCW, but not a product of WCW and he was no where near anything resembling Steve Austin there. Mark Calloway was just an above average guy on the roster there.
    Last edited by Powder; 03-21-2017 at 01:13 PM.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAman View Post
    It's 50/50. He's been ramping up his dickness the past few weeks. He's acting like a complete asshole towards two of the most beloved people in wrestling in Taker and Shawn Michaels. It's either a heel turn, or Vince simply thinks that it would make him look like a tough guy. Could go either way.
    It's neither. You guys are forgetting that Roman was going to get booed regardless of how he was portrayed in this feud. Make him the heel he gets booed. Make him the face he gets booed. Either way the crowd was going to be against him because of Taker. So Vince is basically making Roman more tweenerish for this feud, much like he did when Roman went against AJ last year, and then afterwards he'll go back to how he was before. Unless Meltzer is wrong, Roman-Brock is happening next year and there's no way WWE is going to turn Reigns heel only to turn him face again in less than a year's time to put him against Brock; it's too quick to make work unless it absolutely fires on all cylinders. So this is merely them making Roman a tweener to serve the purpose of this Taker feud before he beats Taker, gets his endorsement and then goes back to being what he was. Smart? Hell no. But after all the chances they've had to turn him heel and haven't, combined with how they never turned Cena heel, I see no reason to believe this is leading anywhere until I see it.


  9. #89
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    It's neither. You guys are forgetting that Roman was going to get booed regardless of how he was portrayed in this feud. Make him the heel he gets booed. Make him the face he gets booed. Either way the crowd was going to be against him because of Taker. So Vince is basically making Roman more tweenerish for this feud, much like he did when Roman went against AJ last year, and then afterwards he'll go back to how he was before. Unless Meltzer is wrong, Roman-Brock is happening next year and there's no way WWE is going to turn Reigns heel only to turn him face again in less than a year's time to put him against Brock; it's too quick to make work unless it absolutely fires on all cylinders. So this is merely them making Roman a tweener to serve the purpose of this Taker feud before he beats Taker, gets his endorsement and then goes back to being what he was. Smart? Hell no. But after all the chances they've had to turn him heel and haven't, combined with how they never turned Cena heel, I see no reason to believe this is leading anywhere until I see it.
    Brock doesn't necessarily have to go into that feud as the heel, either, though. He seems like he's neither a babyface or a heel at any given time, he's just Brock Lesnar. He had that pseudo feud with Bray Wyatt. He's worked with Kevin Owens on house shows. Even last time he faced Reigns, they he didn't play any more of a heel than Reigns has with Taker. He's just their special attraction bad ass.

    I'm not sure what the plan is with Reigns, but if he beats Taker at WrestleMania, I can't see how they don't turn him. He'll get boo'd out of the building for months unless they have some plan in mind to instantly babyface him. I mean, they could move him to SmackDown and pair him with Baron Corbin or someone else who gets unnecessary hate.

    Start the trend of chanting "Die Roman, Die" and maybe that'll do it for VKM.

    Last edited by Team Farrell; 03-21-2017 at 01:35 PM.

  10. #90
    I beat up Kong! Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,321
    I know you are talking to tongue in cheek, but The problem with chanting Die Roman Die, is that the target audience in the 90s was adults, now it is kids, which is why the whitebread character of Rocky Maivia failed, and it is also why Reigns' character is failing among adults. But he works with the kids. So I can see Vince turning down the mics if the crowd started chanting anything like that against Reigns or just editing it out completely, like when they take away signs.

    The boos won't change VKM's mind, maybe that chant of "Die Roman Die" might. Either way something needs to change because Reigns as a face just will not be over until they make some changes...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •