DMJ

Yeah. It was. And I'm as negative about the WWE as a whole as anyone. - Both tag matches were really, really good (though the finish to the RAW Tag Team Title match wasn't great). The New Day staked their claim to being in consideration as the best tag team in the US. - Banks vs. Carmella was probably Carmella's career match and arguably one of Banks' too. - I didn't love the opening match, but Reigns/Owens was a winner for me. As everyone has said, even during the build, it never felt like Owens had a chance - but I liked that they leaned into that in the match too instead of trying to build up Owens as Reigns' equal. Owens never had control. He got some offense in, sure, but Reigns dominated for the most part and had Jey Uso cutting off Owens any time that KO even got close to the belt. Someone mentioned that there was some overkill in the table and ladder spots, but I thought they all looked good and didn't feel overly "set up" (which can often be the case when you see guys setting up tables all over the ring). - The last match was exactly the level of silly everyone would expect. It wasn't good but I do think the visual of Wyatt trying to light Orton on fire in the rocking chair was fun and the final visual was cool too. The match was obviously taped - if the Wyatt mannequin being set aflame wasn't enough, look at the digital audience's non-reactions. Based on their non-engagement, I'm guessing that the match was taped while the audience were in some digital "waiting room"? Or just recycled from some other segment?

I've been as big a proponent for Big E to get a main event push as anyone, but I think circumstances screwed it up a bit. As has happened countless times over the years now, the WWE simply missed the moment. I think a few years back, you would've seen Big E get a massive pop and a ton of support as a babyface challenger for Brock. And, because Big E is a massive dude, he wouldn't have looked all that small or unbelievable standing toe-to-toe against Lesnar. But the window closed and now they need to kinda wait for it to re-open. When Rollins was feuding with Lesnar, that probably should've been Big E. But it wasn't. The New Day have done a miraculous job of staying over for years now and I don't think Big E has missed his moment forever, but like McIntyre, I don't think "that moment" should happen in an empty arena. He's also lucked out in the sense that he's on the brand with Reigns, who is easily the best character on the roster right now. There's really nobody - not Big E, not Jey Uso, certainly not Kevin Owens - that should be beating Roman Reigns. Will that still be true in April? Maybe, maybe not, but right now, I don't see anyone stepping up and usurping Reigns at the top of the card.

Re: Roman Reigns Coming Back... My guess is that, aside from some sort of financial reconstructuring/incentive, the situation is plainly that both sides have accurately "read" the other side's unstated (or maybe even stated) intentions. I think Roman does have an eye on a post-wrestling career in movies and/or TV. He also knows that, judging by how Cena did it, that doesn't necessarily mean he needs to cut himself off from the WWE entirely the way The Rock sorta had to for a stretch in the 00s. It was a different time. Rock needed to distance himself to be taken seriously and I don't think Reigns will have to do the same. We've also seen over the past 10 years, top guy spots don't get filled. If you leave on top, you can come back on top year after year for bigger and bigger paydays. Whereas guys like Cena or Hogan or Austin have talked about needing to "protect their spot," in 2020, Reigns can leave for months to shoot a movie and when/if he comes back, even just do 4-5 matches a year, he's going to earn more than a Kevin Owens or Sami Zayn. Just ask Brock. Or Taker. Or probably Cena the next time he decides dedicate a few months to the WWE. At the same time, we're in the middle of a pandemic and TV/film production has slowed tremendously or completely halted. Its unclear what state the movie industry is going to be in this time next year. 2020 was not the year to try to break into movies - big budget or small budget. So, Roman Reigns, as someone whose worth and value is tied to his visibility, needed to come back to work at some point. (There's also that pesky contract he signed.) I'd even daresay that Reigns walking out on the WWE, while it would've probably gotten him a fair amount of praise and appreciation from wrestling fans and even some in the entertainment industry, would still have been a risky move as it could've damaged his reputation as a dependable, bankable performer and public persona (two things that I'm sure The Rock, Cena, and Batista would emphasize are critical for landing those big roles in DC/Marvel/Disney movies). And so the WWE gets Roman Reigns back even if he has one foot out the door and, because he's Roman Reigns and the WWE is rapidly running out of guys that actually feel like capital-S Superstars, the WWE needs to capitalize on him and are thus motivated to treat him like a Superstar (give him the "A" material/creative freedom/whatever). In return, Roman gets to come in and play the badass Chief and seemingly pick who he wants to work with, which keeps him looking like a star, which will ultimately help his chances in Hollywood.

I'm not sure Charlotte not elevating other talent is necessarily her fault. When you're booked to be the top act and then you continually perform well in that role, you can get called out for "burying" or holding back others. Cena had that label. Austin had that label. Triple H and Hogan had that label. Mileage varies in regards to whether said wrestler is deserving of that criticism or not or even what wrestlers they should've put over and shouldn't have put over and when. Its also often misconstrued that "elevating" means "putting over" (not that you're doing that). Bianca is right that Sasha and Bayley have done a nice job of bringing other talents into the mix. Roman Reigns did a helluva job doing it for Jey Uso, who now feels like an established singles guy more than I ever thought possible. But is it a fact that Charlotte hasn't? If you look back at the Women's Revolution, Charlotte's last name, marketability, and natural "star power" really helped. She instantly stood out as the spotlight attraction of the whole bunch and, whether you find her work good or bad, she was the anchor of the entire division for years. I don't think Sasha, Bayley, or Becky get as over without Charlotte Flair. A few years back, Charlotte and Ruby Riott had a kickass match on a B-level PPV. Anyone with their eyes open could see that Riott was really talented and deserved to be in the mix moving forward. Vince must've been napping because Riott hasn't really had many opportunities since. But is that on Charlotte? I don't think so. Vince doesn't see Ruby Riott as a star. He didn't see Rhea Ripley as worthy of beating Charlotte either. And why would he? We saw Bayley, Asuka, and Baszler come out of NXT after much, much hotter runs and not get "the rocket" either. Regardless, Charlotte isn't the one making the decisions and I don't recall her sandbagging Ripley at WrestleMania.

For sure. I didn't mean to imply the War Games 98' match was good, just that, from a storyline perspective, it made sense to have that match as the company was still mired in the nWo storyline, which was based on long-running feuds between rival factions. I guess Undisputed Era represent the Four Horsemen/nWo in that they are the perennial heels (or faces?) that people band together to fight, so maybe its just my bias against Adam Cole that makes me not like the modern versions.

I'd argue that the War Games from 94' - 98' still made more sense storyline-wise than any of the ones we've seen in NXT. In 94', it was the culmination of the Rhodes Family vs. Stud Stable feud. In 95', as lame as it was, the Dungeon of Doom was a "dominant" heel stable feuding with Hogan and his allies. From 96' through 98', you've got the nWo involved. The Women's editions haven't had any storyline reason to exist. Its just your 4 babyfaces vs. your 4 heels. The men's side of things is barely any better. Pat McAfee is feuding with Undisputed Era so he pays to have 3 guys join his side would make more sense if the guys he hired were, y'know, imposing monsters like Authors of Pain or even people known for their brutality and killer instinct. I like Orcan and Burch and Dunne just fine but none of them jump out to me as being "the muscle" one would hire if they unlimited resources. Also, to me, that main event "exposed" a bit too much. I get that McAfee is a natural athlete, but man, the guy went through a table, took a superplex, and kicked out of a Panama Sunrise in what was historically the most feared, most "dangerous" match ever created. Its a bit like Shane McMahon holding his own in the Hell in the Cell. In a regular match, a non-wrestler should be at a disadvantage and should have to cut corners and cheat to even put up a fight against a trained pro-wrestler. In a cage match, a non-wrestler shouldn't be able to last 2 minutes. Its hard to buy into a War Games or Hell in a Cell being this "demonic structure" when the matches come off as something a guy wants to do just to cross it off his bucket list.

Agreed. I don't expect Sting to be a ratings draw or anything, but he's always going to be over and has a "gravitas" that you can't earn overnight or just by winning matches. He's not quite at the same level as The Undertaker in terms of mythology and all that, but there was also never a year where The Undertaker went completely silent, stood in the rafters, and sent a bird to the ring and ended up more over than he'd ever been. The WWE had no interest in using Sting the way a 90s wrestling fan would - which is, dumb or not, to write his character like The Crow, like a dark comic book hero, like an apparition. Can things veer into Ultimate Warrior in 98' territory? Sure. They could. Or we could get moments that might raise the hair on your arm a little, the kind of stuff that people write fan fiction about (except it won't feature Taker or Bray Wyatt).

I read Pat Patterson's biography this year - or maybe in 2019? - and would say, if you haven't yet, its a good read and feels honest. I know he had a co-writer/ghostwriter, but like Rocky Johnson's book, its still in that top 10% of wrestling books to me that is worth checking out, full of good stories, and feels like it was written without bitterness, anger, or "in kayfabe" (and, at least where I am in Cleveland, 100% free to read just by ordering it through your friendly neighborhood library).

This and the sequence at Survivor Series where Nia was supposed to be cleaning house and tossing people out of the ring but all the women just willfully flung themselves over and between the ropes instead are very telling. It's like, "Yes, I'll work a match with her, but also, I'm gonna protect myself first and worry about how it looks later."

I love how Aries has a quote about how the country has been "set up for civil unrest." By who, Austin? The only people spreading lies about widespread voter fraud, which would've required hundreds if not thousands of individuals across many states to commit treason in order to *idiotically* have Biden win the Presidential election but for Democrats to not take over the House or Senate (I mean, if you're going to rig an election, why not rig it for full control?), are Trump supporters who bought into his bullshit. Trump never even admitted that he lost the popular election to Hilary in 2016. In his mind (and words), he drove the narrative that he "crushed" Hilary. He didn't. He said he would "crush" the "worst nominee in the history of the US" Joe Biden. He didn't. Every poll, every analyst, everybody except Trump and his most rabid fans, knew this was going to be a very tight race. That is why they can't comprehend that a 50/50 win could go either way and that it went to Biden, fair and square. They believed Trump's false narrative that he was the most popular President in US history despite the inarguable fact that HE WASN"T. His supporters seem to believe that he was *more* popular in 2020 than in 2016. But because this is PWO I'm going to circle back to a point that is Pro-Wrestling. It has been said by many a wrestler but when you're cutting a promo, when you're running down your opponent, when you're calling him an egg-sucking dog or a jabroni or a son of a bitch, you *still* make sure your opponent is somewhat protected. The philosophy is that a heel or face shouldn't run down their opponent too much because if you end up losing to a "loser," you've lost to a loser, and if you beat them, you didn't beat anyone - you just beat a loser. In other words, even heels like Ric Flair would give credit to Lex Luger's strength and physique and even The Rock would give credit to Triple H's craftiness and cunning. In this election, Trump and his supporters treated Biden as a joke. They called him the worst nominee for POTUS ever. Some even smeared Democrats as child-molesting Satan worshippers. Well, Donald Trump lost to a child-molesting Satan worshipper now, I guess, and that is a hard pill to swallow. The small irony is that, in some ways, this is also what happened in 2016 as many Democrats (and Hilary) underestimated Trump and believed Americans would have to be crazy, racist morons to vote such a monster into office. Well, it happened. He won in 2016. In a tight race, fair and square. I expect this post to be deleted, but I had to vent somewhere - sorry! Also, fuck Austin Aries and Chris Jericho for not understanding the basic idea that, historically, when record voter turnout happens, Democrats do well. To make another wrestling reference, its kinda like how, at a small indie show, you might see lots of people wearing Austin Aries shirts. But when you go to a big WWE show, you'll see way more John Cena shirts. Just because your fanbase is "rabid" doesn't mean its representative of the people outside your indie world bubble. The country is split. If you can't concede that, you're blind. If you do agree that the country is split, then it shouldn't be hard to understand that one candidate defeated another fairly without a massive conspiracy.

Yes, this was an undeniably great match. I wasn't expecting much because this isn't necessarily a match that gets talked about and, as I was only just starting to come back to my fandom in the summer of 05', I wasn't aware of any sort of "buzz" around this. I'm guessing, at the time, this was considered some sort of Shawn Michaels "carry job," but its not. Masters bumps with gusto, executes the basic things well, has great facial expressions, and never looks lost or gassed even as they work through some tight sequences. The story is simple-but-effective and, as the OP stated, Michaels looks particularly motivated to "make" Chris Masters. Its almost like watching Flair vs. a young Sting or Luger (with the face/heel roles reversed) as Michaels unselfishly makes the Master Lock look like the most devastating finisher ever in 3 separate instances (before the bell, having to escape it with an uncharacteristic mule kick to the balls, and then, ultimately, having to escape it by kicking his way over the top rope). Sadly, in hindsight, a match that should've put Masters on the fast-track to the main event scene and served as a start to a great run actually ended up being his career peak. To this day the WWE makes this same mistake with countless guys. They'll give someone the spotlight, have them shine even in a loss (think Keith Lee at last year's Survivor Series), and then immediately ice them with the false notion that they can reheat them anytime. Regardless, this is a really good match and going 4-stars on it is not at all an exaggeration. Worth watching.

I'm much more excited about the news that came out regarding a potential Steve Austin doc. I know he has some not-so-hidden skeletons in the closet himself - the domestic abuse arrest, being estranged from his kids - but I feel like he'd also be much more likely to open up about those things and admit his mistakes (like Jake Roberts, Scott Hall, and others have done) than Vince McMahon would ever admit. Plus, to me, the impact Vince has had on pro-wrestling, mainstream media culture, etc. is well-trodden territory. I mean, is there really anything to the Vince story that hasn't been chronicled? Austin, on the other hand, is kinda like Flair or Andre - sure, us die-hards know all the ins-and-outs of his career and even some of his more infamous out-of-ring hijinks, but it's FUN to revisit the highlights and it will be nice to see it all in one tight production with context and insights from celebrity fans and his peers. Comparatively, I can't think of anything less fun (even in the nostalgic sense) to sit through all that "comedy" (Kiss My Ass Club, every time a McMahon was involved in some sort of feces-based angle, etc.) or hear Vince and his family spout off their usual revisionism or phony "we put smiles on faces" jingoism. A McMahon documentary talking about how much of a "genius" he is just sounds like something we've seen a dozen times before in their DVD sets and on the Network.

Yea, it almost seems like Vince or whoever had no confidence in Kamala or Taker being able to actually work longer than 5 minutes, but the 5 minutes or so we do get is actually way better than expected. Undertaker hits the Old School early, but once the action spills out of the ring, the brawling is pretty good. The chair shot isn't captured great by the camera, but it sounds like he really cracks him (which is almost better than if we had seen that it was actually a weak shot). Then, as the OP said, I love Kamala's reactions to not only the ineffectiveness of his initial body slams, but then when the urn ends up in the ring. This match could've stood for a bit more brawling, maybe more interference/interaction between Kim Chee and Bearer (as their limited interaction gets a great reaction), and, truthfully, at least one false finish or even having Kim Chee getting stuffed in the casket as well. Maybe this match benefits from being so short, but to me, it almost seems like a shame they didn't get to throw at least one more momentum swing or twist to this match because everything they did do was pretty good.

Very sad news. Tracey was the real deal. As a kid, I liked the Southern Boys/Young Pistols and remember recognizing Tracey when he became Freddie Joe Floyd a couple years later. What immediately comes to mind with Tracey Smothers, though, is that he became a semi-regular here in Cleveland, wrestling for Cleveland All-Pro run by JT Lightning (and Johnny Gargano's stepdad, I think), which sorta morphed into Pro Wrestling Ohio which sorta morphed into Absolute Intense Wrestling. For the past 15 years, Tracey was just always on these shows and I know its true for other regional/indie promos throughout this half of the county (if not the whole country). And he always seemed like he was having a good time, glad to be there, and appreciative. Its also fun to look at some of his opponents over the last decade on Cagematch - its a real who's who of "true" indie guys like Grado and Luke Hawx and Mad Man Pondo and the list goes on.

It truly is a lethal lottery.

Doing jobs is part of a "push" now. Same as being part of a shitty/comedy stable. And being somebody's sidekick. Its all the "brilliance" of Vince McMahon's longterm booking. It took like 10 years for Drew McIntyre to go from semi-decent push to midcard filler matches to 3MB comedy to being Ziggler's sidekick to beating Brock Lesnar. Matt Riddle, Slapnuts, and T-Boz are going to be mega stars in 2030 and then who'll be a "bad booker"?

Before this thread got derailed with talk about Ricochet, there was some discussion of Drew McIntyre. I liked Orton and Drew's SummerSlam match more than most and I even thought the Clash of the Champions match was a perfectly fine feud-ender. Then, last night's match happened...Just yuck. There were so many logic holes and this type of stipulation/setting just isn't a great fit for a guy with McIntyre's skill set/style. The best parts of the match were when they were just wrestling. Everything else around the cage and on top of it was awkward looking. It was not a creative match, it was not a captivating match, it was not even a highly physical match. It was a chore to watch. The piped-in "This is Awesome" chat was comical because this match was not at all awesome. And to top it all off, Drew McIntyre lost, clean, in the middle of the ring, to a guy that who he has beaten twice before. I get that Orton is as credible as they get, sure, and can beat anybody on any given night, but this really felt like Drew LOSING more than Orton winning. Its hard not to see this as the WWE opting to create the "next Sheamus" rather than go all in on the first Drew McIntyre. Sure, Drew will probably eventually get another title run and be treated like an upper midcard-level guy when the company needs him to be, but being a perennial top guy? I didn't see it in January, I didn't see it in April, but I must admit that the WWE was making me believe it could be possible these past few months...only to make me realize I was right the first time. McIntyre hit his ceiling last night and that ceiling is 40-year old Randy Orton (which, admittedly, isn't all that old...but because Orton started so young and has been a top guy so long, he seems like he should be 8-10 years older than guys like Kofi or Ziggler, when he's basically the same age as them - and only 5 years older than McIntyre and RAW's hottest new superstar Keith Lee).

I just watched this for the first time this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd definitely consider it a career match for Triple H (and Batista too). I wouldn't necessarily call this a "carry job," though, because Batista puts a ton of gusto into all the bumps he takes and, impressively, delivers big power moves from beginning to end when he needs to. For a guy who was sometimes criticized for being gassed and unable to work long matches, on this night, Batista knocked it out of the park. In recent years, Batista has openly stated that he wished he'd been around during the Attitude Era rather than the "PG Era" and this match shows why - he and Triple H are clearly reveling in the barbarism they get to show off. They'd do it again at WrestleMania XXXV (or was it 34? I forget). I also like that this match is really simple in structure, pacing, and big spots. They don't overreach. They don't flood it with nearfalls. They don't finisher spam. They don't get cutesy with anything. Its a Hell in a Cell match so you don't need run-ins (even though a Flair appearance would make sense storyline-wise) and ref bumps and convoluted ways to have both guys out of the cage or on top of it. The match can just be a goddamn bloody brawl in a cage with weapons and, done correctly, you don't even need to use multiple finishers or some insane bump through 2 tables off a ladder to get to a believable ending point. (4.5/5)

I agree with everything above. The term "Self Conscious Epic" comes to mind with this match. As the poster above noted, this may not be the first of its kind - I mean, would Warrior/Savage at WrestleMania VII count as a self conscious epic in a way? - but this match definitely comes across as two guys that know the ingredients for a great match, start by sprinkling them, and then, by the end, are just pouring them on to the point that the match loses any sense of realism. It starts out decent - the usual slow-build that comes with these sorts of matches - and when Angle takes control, Shawn is perfectly fine selling. I liked the hope spots. The buckle bomb gets a massive reaction (it was a pretty rare move to bust out in the WWE back then and still is). Then, things get wonky. Angle starts the match teasing Ankle Locks but abandons that strategy. Michaels gets a cut under his eye, but Angle doesn't exploit it (which, if he was a better improviser, maybe he could've/should've). He hits the buckle bomb (seemingly going after Michaels neck), but then goes for suplexes to target Michaels' back before applying a rear chinlock to slow him down. There's no rhyme or reason for anything Angle does even though it all looks good. Michaels, meanwhile, is getting beaten down so bad that him springing to life becomes less and less believable. Kicking out at 2.9 can be awesome - but when you're doing it for every single nearfall from the very start of the match, it loses its luster. This match didn't need a ref bump. This match didn't need Michaels taking a nasty fall on the outside and seemingly injuring his ankle - only to then survive the dreaded Ankle Lock for the amount of time he did. What was Angle doing going to the top rope? Was he going to attempt a flying forearm? Since when does he even do that move? His lone top rope move has always been the moonsault so the finish seems like it was designed to "look cool" rather than actually make sense. I'd still consider this above-average because the crowd is definitely into it, I think the commentators do a good job of giving this a big fight feel, and there are some spots and moments that are really good. I wasn't bored by it. I didn't catch myself checking my phone while watching. In some ways, had this match and matches like it not become "the blueprint" for so much of the garbage we see today, it would probably be easier to enjoy. This is Michaels and Angle as the Godfathers of a style of match that we now get on NXT every week. But in isolation, in front of this crowd, in this context, it obviously pleased the fans of 2005 more than it pleased me.

NXT's slide in quality started a long time before Covid, but it also doesn't help that - even for a WWE-centric fan - NXT no longer looks or feels any different than RAW or SmackDown, and how many hours of the same thing can one reasonably watch? I know some people see worlds of difference between the PC Center, Full Sail, the Thunderdome, and wherever else they've been filming for the past 7 months, but it all looks kinda the same to me and I never forget that there's not actually a full live crowd (even if that crowd is less than 500 for NXT and 8,000+ for RAW). For a time, NXT did feel like WWE's own "alternative" brand, but that changed a long time ago and now, even a side-by-side comparison in production doesn't yield much contrast.

I just watched this for the first time and expected to read lots of praise for it. I'm a bit surprised that this wasn't a universally-loved gem. Maybe it just caught me on the right night, but I loved this match and think it really deserves some love. - Red hot crowd. - Amazing pace. This match just doesn't slow down. - Fantastic Bret performance. Him running into the turnbuckles - backfirst and chestfirst - always pops me. Love some of his counters and roll-ups. - Nash shows off an arsenal that I'm not sure he ever bothered to utilize again in any match where Bret wasn't his opponent. - The commentary on this show is legendarily bad. I'm a Gorilla fan, but he doesn't mix well with Savage and Art Donovan is beyond awful. Somehow, this match was so good that it drowned out the historically terrible commentary. Gorilla's appreciation for what he's watching is apparent and infective. - Shawn and Neidhart get huge reactions for their spots. Nothing really to fault there. - Is it overbooked? Yeah. Probably. But I kinda like that there are moments - Diesel botching a catch, Diesel tossing Bret into Hebner and Hebner *not* going down like he was shot, Bret hitting Diesel with a punch that sends him into the ropes and stumbling like a boxer - that make the match feel like more of a fight than a choreographed dance (even with all the "extras" like the uncovered turnbuckle and the Shawn bump at the end and the screwy finish). - Again, the pace. This match has the crowd at a 10 from the first bell and never lets them go below that. To me, a 4-star match is a "must watch" and I'd say this is a must watch for WWF/WWE fans. Having never seen it, I always viewed it as the "lesser" of the Diesel/Bret PPV matches, but I think it stands up with all of them. When you think of what else the WWE was presenting in 94', I'd even go as high as 4.5-out-of-5.

https://imgur.com/a/EUpe7G6 So we can now add sexual harassment to the list of reasons why Lars Sullivan is a creepy shithead.

I know this will read like a "complaint for complaining's sake" post but its a shame that Sasha and Bayley will have to work their Hell in a Cell match on the same show with 2 other Hell in a Cell matches. Just makes it less special to me. Also, I haven't watched RAW in awhile but why is this Drew/Orton feud even continuing? That Ambulance Match really did feel like the end of the feud as Orton not only got beat, but also got his comeuppance from all the legends. A Hell in a Cell Match with Drew feels like a hat on a hat. I'd have much preferred Drew not even wrestling on the show, but maybe being involved in some big angle/segment with his next challenger - whether that's AJ or (I"m puking in my own mouth) Bray Wyatt.

I've been liking Rollins okay recently after years of not digging him too much, but here's what I'd do with him honestly (and maybe where the WWE is going with him if he does go to SmackDown?).... - Shows up on SmackDown for a couple weeks. Maybe some backstage moments with Roman, reminding him that they used to run the company together and without Heyman. By bringing up the "good old days" and teasing a crowd-pleasing Shield reunion, this would sorta make Rollins a tweener/face, a friend trying to bring their friend back to his "old self." Obviously this goes against Rollins current gimmick, but it isn't unheard of to have this happen when a character jumps from RAW from SmackDown (see Charlotte). - Roman destroys Rollins. - Rollins goes off-screen for awhile (paternity leave) and when he comes back, you can either bring him back on RAW as the heel character (which is actually what he's been the best at) or if the crowds are behind him, as a face to try to get revenge on Reigns on SmackDown. Basically, put Rollins on SmackDown for the sole purpose of establishing heel Reigns even further as a badass with no allegiance to family or his old Shield buddy. Accomplish that in 3-4 weeks and give Rollins a much-needed break from TV.

^ Totally agree with all of that. I just don't know if, even without being overproduced (which is likely) and in a 2-person team, should we shine in this role. If anything, I think she'd benefit from doing what Barrett did. Go elsewhere, learn the job outside the WWE umbrella, and when you come back, you'll have the confidence to be yourself. Barrett has been on NXT for what? A couple weeks? And he's already made a positive difference through sheer confidence and being himself. Right now, she's kinda just a generic commentator but female. We don't need "female Byron Saxton" (and I'm not even slagging Byron Saxton, just saying he's kinda vanilla) when Beth Phoenix being Beth Phoenix could actually add something to the mix.