The booking of Daniel Bryan going forward

[pol]

Bryan's neck issues were cured like 7 months ago when he had neck surgery. getting kind of sick of people talking about Bryan's neck issues like they are on par with Austin's or Edge's. My understanding is that his neck surgery was more in line with Cena's in 2007.

 

What kept him on the shelf was that he had a pinched nerve as a result of the swelling in his neck and because nerves are funny it took time for the big nerve in his arm to regain function. I think all the naturopath did is find a physical therapy routine that was able to get the nerves in his arm working again. Bottom line is that his neck is fully healed and he's probably no more likely to reinjure it than Cena.

 

Fair point, I just remembered all the talk being that he needed a second surgery but was looking at natural solutions. If all it was was a pinched nerve I guess that is something a naturopath could be equipped to deal with.

[pol]

On Reigns, I wouldn't be surprised if he's now consigned to the same "kids love him, adults hate him" slot that Cena is in, and the company continues to do good business based on that but also continues to be unable to convert much of the adult male demographic that makes up the vast majority of their TV audience into paying customers.

[Matt D]

The voting idea is rubbish. What they should really do is start a kickstarter and if enough people give them money, they'll put the belt back on Daniel Bryan. $$$$

[tim]

What are some examples of guys getting as over as Bryan with as little solid backing from the company?

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

[Stiva]

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

 

So, the idea for this is "They won't push us so let's STEAL THE SHOW!"? That's maybe the worst idea for those guys yet. People aren't annoyed that these guys aren't allowed to have good matches, they have good matches all the time. WWE are confusing their crowd for a ROH crowd watching Spanky vs. Jamie Noble. Is anything going to be on the line? Even a number one contender match would work as a way for the match to actually mean something.

[iamthedoctor]

 

What is it that WWE finds so appealing about a Bryan/Sheamus program for WrestleMania? This will be the third time they've run it.

 

Kind of goes with their motif of being behind the times - "The fans were really mad about this match being soo fast at Mania 29, they will LOVE us for giving it them now..."

 

 

Yeah that was just stupid doing a 8 second match between these two. Was it a rib on Bryan?

[Grimmas]

 

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

 

So, the idea for this is "They won't push us so let's STEAL THE SHOW!"? That's maybe the worst idea for those guys yet. People aren't annoyed that these guys aren't allowed to have good matches, they have good matches all the time. WWE are confusing their crowd for a ROH crowd watching Spanky vs. Jamie Noble. Is anything going to be on the line? Even a number one contender match would work as a way for the match to actually mean something.

 

I think if they aren't going to push him to the main level, at least putting him in a great match with time that steals the show is the next best alternative.

[kjh]

 

I think WWE management view Sheamus and Daniel Bryan at roughly the same level. Two guys they gave the big push to, who didn't really get over with the masses. SummerSlam 2013 drew disappointingly with Bryan on top. The feud with Orton really only drew well at Hell In A Cell, which coincided with Cena's return and Shawn Michaels as special guest referee. I could see Vince looking at those numbers and getting confirmation bias, which allows him to drown out the noise of all those Yes chants in the arenas every week.

 

Summerslam 2013 actually did not draw a disappointing buyrate. The initial numbers were disappointing but they were later revised.

 

 

It still drew substantially less than 2012, even revised upward.

[kjh]

 

 

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

 

So, the idea for this is "They won't push us so let's STEAL THE SHOW!"? That's maybe the worst idea for those guys yet. People aren't annoyed that these guys aren't allowed to have good matches, they have good matches all the time. WWE are confusing their crowd for a ROH crowd watching Spanky vs. Jamie Noble. Is anything going to be on the line? Even a number one contender match would work as a way for the match to actually mean something.

 

I think if they aren't going to push him to the main level, at least putting him in a great match with time that steals the show is the next best alternative.

 

 

The bar might be very low to steal the show this year, which is lucky for them, as they won't get the time to steal the show. With how they usually lay out the show they'll get 13 minutes if they're very lucky, 6 minutes if WWE are feeling like arrogant dicks.

[Jmare007]

 

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

 

So, the idea for this is "They won't push us so let's STEAL THE SHOW!"? That's maybe the worst idea for those guys yet. People aren't annoyed that these guys aren't allowed to have good matches, they have good matches all the time. WWE are confusing their crowd for a ROH crowd watching Spanky vs. Jamie Noble. Is anything going to be on the line? Even a number one contender match would work as a way for the match to actually mean something.

 

 

Agreed. They should run a tournament for the next n°1 contender and held the finals at Mania with D-Bry and Dolph facing off. A 2 month build of them saying "we will steal the show!" sounds cringe worthy.

 

[Russellmania]

the notion that Bryan is not automatically the number one contender is infuriating anyway. he never lost the title. In kayfabe terms he probably should have been part of the Royal Rumble title match. It's kind of silly that he had to even be in the Rumble if you think about it. Why should the uncrowned champion be subject to the same process to earn a title shot as Titus O'Neill? To make him wrestle in a number 1 contender's tournament on top of that would be even more silly.

 

But whatever, it's all moot because he should be main eventing wrestlemania and this company is exceedingly fucking stupid.

 

also I'm totally indifferent to Ziggler and the idea of a Bryan/Ziggler WM match doesn't excite me at all. Honestly from a pure wrestling standpoint I'd much prefer Bryan/Sheamus, but Bryan deserves better either way. Nothing they can come up with will be better than Bryan/Brock would have been.

[DMJ]

SummerSlam 2013 drew disappointingly with Bryan on top. The feud with Orton really only drew well at Hell In A Cell, which coincided with Cena's return and Shawn Michaels as special guest referee. I could see Vince looking at those numbers and getting confirmation bias, which allows him to drown out the noise of all those Yes chants in the arenas every week.

 

Actually, when they released the Quarter 4 Earnings, the SummerSlam numbers were 30,000 purchases higher than were originally reported. While this didn't equal the previous years show, it was much closer than many people believe.

 

I'd be interested to look back how did it compared to Brock's return at Extreme Rules 2012 or the Brock/HHH cage match the next year or the few Punk-headlined PPVs without Cena because I'm really curious to know, if you look at just the past three years, if there was any single performer that can be pointed to as more of a draw than another. SummerSlam '13 was about as loaded a card as the WWE has put on outside a Mania that I can remember this decade.

[Cobra Commander]

the notion that Bryan is not automatically the number one contender is infuriating anyway. he never lost the title. In kayfabe terms he probably should have been part of the Royal Rumble title match. It's kind of silly that he had to even be in the Rumble if you think about it. Why should the uncrowned champion be subject to the same process to earn a title shot as Titus O'Neill?

WWE Champs that vacated due to injury

 

HBK, 1997: returned 4 months later, won the title in a non-descript PPV match

 

Batista, 2006: returned 6 months later, worked with Booker T for a bit before winning the belt in November.

 

Edge, 2007: returned at Survivor Series and won the belt in December.

 

Cena, 2007: returned and won the 2008 Rumble.

 

Batista, 2009: returned, defeated Orton, left Raw, competed in 2010 Rumble

 

Edge, 2011: retired.

[Smack2k]

 

 

Dave says on the F4W board that the Twitter stuff with Ziggler and Bryan is "a WWE-scripted angle," so I guess that's the Mania match they have planned.

 

So, the idea for this is "They won't push us so let's STEAL THE SHOW!"? That's maybe the worst idea for those guys yet. People aren't annoyed that these guys aren't allowed to have good matches, they have good matches all the time. WWE are confusing their crowd for a ROH crowd watching Spanky vs. Jamie Noble. Is anything going to be on the line? Even a number one contender match would work as a way for the match to actually mean something.

 

I think if they aren't going to push him to the main level, at least putting him in a great match with time that steals the show is the next best alternative.

 

 

Not the main level, WITH time….not gonna happen!!!

 

Bryan and Dolph having an amazing, 20 or more minute match that steals the show doesn't sound like something WWE is gonna do if they are hell bent on him being below mid card...

 

I keep seeing Bryan booked like Benoit was post title reign in late 2004 and into 2005….with no MITB match at Mania, he may get that match with Ziggler "to shut those fans up" but they won't get what is needed to ensure WWE's goals of where they want to push guys stays in tact…the way they work, I can't see it being any different...

 

They did a 180 last year after Feb and put things right, I am really hoping they do it here…

[Strummer]

Bryan just tweeted about the Dolph match again. So that seems to be where they are headed. They certainly should attach a stip

[Strummer]

I'd imagine they do Bryan/Ziggler v Kane/Show at Fast Lane to set up the match. Bryan is working so far under his level of overness that it's hysterical

 

Dave mentioned on twitter in his preview for the upcoming issue that the company is adamant about not changing plans this year

[Loss]

I feel the need to post this yet again since it was reported in the WON once again.

 

Summerslam 2013 did not draw a disappointing number.

 

It was originally reported as 296,000 buys. They later revised the number to 332,000 buys, which Dave buried in the WWE section at some point last year. He never even discussed the ramifications of the bad decisions that came from the original low number. That number is still being used against Bryan when it was actually a good number. Initial projections were off, sadly.

 

Compare it to HHH-Brock, which drew 350,000 buys and was considered a huge success. It's not a major difference.

[shoe]

On the face side the company has it in this order with a little variation.

 

1.Reigns

2.Cena

3.Orton

4.Bryan

5. Ambrose

6. Ziggler

7.Ryback

 

That's not even including Sting or Taker. The company wants the good stuff that comes with DB like the subscriptions they got annoincing him for the Rumble. The WWE are so greedy. They want all the benefits that comes with booking him like subscriptions, but not the boos for their guy.

[Timbo Slice]

It's not about greediness. It's about a completely different perception of what they think a "top guy" should be. Wade Keller was totally right on Austin's podcast yesterday: Bryan's not the long term guy at all, but he's probably your best bet for the next 12-18 months. That would allow Reigns the time to get over more organically and shit like the Rumble wouldn't happen.

 

But what I don't think anybody is talking about is the fact that maybe one of the reasons this is happening is because Cena might be more banged up than we all think. He might not have a major injury, and he's a freak of nature, but stuff might be piling up. Couple that with Brock's possible departure, Vince is probably thinking he needs Reigns to grow up quickly. If that's what's driving this, Vince's logic is even more messed up considering his best option IS Bryan. His stubbornness is killing the idea before it even starts.

[Russellmania]

it's just crazy to me that Vince is making almost the same exact mistakes 20 years later. The Bryan/Reigns situation feels a lot like Michaels/Diesel back in '95. At the time Michaels was heating up and seemed like the safe bet to give a title run until they find a more traditional franchise guy, but Vince panicked and tried to make Diesel the next Hogan. Ultimately Diesel wasn't a draw and also sucked in the ring and he was forced to go with HBK a year later. And the funny thing is that I think Bryan has a lot more mainstream appeal than Michaels did back then. I wouldn't be shocked at all if Reigns flops ala Diesel and a year later Vince has no choice but to push Bryan after all.

 

As for whether or not Bryan can be "the guy" for longer than a few months or a year....I agree that on paper it wouldn't seem like it, but in 1996 I don't think anyone would have guessed that Steve Austin would end up as big as Hulk Hogan. And I see a lot of people saying it's unrealistic for Bryan to be pushed into that spot because he's already "old" at 33. I find that funny because Steve Austin didn't win his first world title until he was 33. Even if they were to push Bryan and he has a solid run on top for 3 or 4 years, that's still plenty of time for him to draw some money and build a legacy. Guys like Cena who are on top for 10+ years are exceedingly rare. It is really unfair and unrealistic for WWE to insist on finding *that* guy when they have a guy right now who could potentially still have a very impressive run if given the chance. Not saying he's the next Steve Austin either, just that there are similarities in that neither guy was the prototypical WWE babyface and neither was ever "chosen" to be the top guy. It's just incredibly frustrating as a fan to see how they're handling Bryan knowing that if they'd been that stubborn with Austin in 96/97 then they'd likely be out of business today. Like how the hell can Vince not see that?

[shoe]

It's not about greediness. It's about a completely different perception of what they think a "top guy" should be. Wade Keller was totally right on Austin's podcast yesterday: Bryan's not the long term guy at all, but he's probably your best bet for the next 12-18 months. That would allow Reigns the time to get over more organically and shit like the Rumble wouldn't happen.

 

But what I don't think anybody is talking about is the fact that maybe one of the reasons this is happening is because Cena might be more banged up than we all think. He might not have a major injury, and he's a freak of nature, but stuff might be piling up. Couple that with Brock's possible departure, Vince is probably thinking he needs Reigns to grow up quickly. If that's what's driving this, Vince's logic is even more messed up considering his best option IS Bryan. His stubbornness is killing the idea before it even starts.

Greedy might be the wrong term. Though what happened in 2014's Rumble should have been fresh on their minds. Bryan never should have been announced for the Rumble if they wanted Reigns victory to be accepted. If Bryan wasn't there would it have worked....we'll never know. Announcing him for the Rumble was so they might capture more subscriptions.Know one knew he was healthy so they easily could have waited on a return. In their arrogance of not understanding the Daniel Bryan dynamic they booked him in the Rumble to maximize him as a draw. They didn't debut Orton because they didn't want his new babyface run to start with a loss, and in their arrogance and greed compromised the heir apparent. I understand that they don't view him as a top guy. Though they do want the money he does add to a card. So in that sense they're greedy.They wanted the best of both worlds. What DB brought to the Rumble, and their "creative" vision to lead Roman Reigns to the promised land. Vince should be going to church more often after getting that snow day to spin damage control.

[Fantastic]

Though they do want the money he does add to a card. So in that sense they're greedy.They wanted the best of both worlds. What DB brought to the Rumble, and their "creative" vision to lead Roman Reigns to the promised land. Vince should be going to church more often after getting that snow day to spin damage control.

 

 

Agreed, the contradiction is so damn apparent. They don't want Daniel Bryan as "their guy", but they still want what he brings to the table. It's similar to Ryder in 2011, but to a far greater degree. Ryder was pretty over with the live crowds, had a large social media following, and was shifting a shit ton of merch and that basically forced WWE into putting the United States title on him and giving him a mini push. Had they got past the idea that "nobody gets over without our say so" and stayed with it, he could be working around that level that Ziggler works at today, but instead they completely buried him in a terrible storyline with Eve, Kane, and John Cena and then proceeded to job him out for the next three years following his US title loss.

 

In essence, they took what Ryder brought to the table, then put him through it.

 

With Bryan, it's much like you describe. Bryan is the most over face in WWE, his reactions are on par with John Cena, but unlike Cena, the crowd completely favors Bryan. People relate to him, he's a phenomenal talent in ring, great on the mic, and very charismatic. His only short fall (pun appropriate) is his size. He's not got that "larger than life" look about him, sure, he's gained a bit of size since coming to WWE, but he's under 6'0 and barely 195lbs. That being said, he has a unique look, the unruly beard has become a trademark, but that's not the type of trademark look that inspires WWE to say "this is what our guy looks like", no rather it's a tall, heavily muscled physique, clean cut and standard "good looks". That prototype is what they've always wanted for their number one guy.

 

Will they ever look past this standard and cave in to the popularity of Bryan? They've done it in a manner of speaking before with the likes of Bob Backlund and Shawn Michaels (pretty yes, but without the size or stand out physique). Those two guys were chosen seemingly for their charisma, in ring talent and audience relation above all else.

[El-P]

After ten years of Cena on top, things have changed. The WWE now is a totally different beast than what it was in the 90's and before. It's a corporate monster. And they have an idea of what The Man should be that goes way beyond the in-ring product. With Cena, they have established their idea of what The Man should be, and it's not a good one (cheesy, corny, imposible to turn heel, devaluating every loss). And to replace Cena, they want another Cena. It's very clear that's what they want to do with Reigns thus far, with those awful promos he's been given. It's not a matter of who gets over anymore, at all, and it will only get worse with the Network. There's nothing organic at all in the way this company works at this point.

 

(Back in the days of Austin, it's important to remember they totally lucked out with him. It was no Vince brillant masterplan and creation. At some point they realized what was happening and pulled the trigger at the right time and the right way. But they had WCW killing them in the ratings, it was a matter of reacting immediately or they would have been kicked in the dust. But it took quite a bit of time and the right circumstances to produce Austin, namely the Shawn Michaels debacle at WM13 which put Austin with Bret with the legendary mach and double-turn)

[kjh]

I feel the need to post this yet again since it was reported in the WON once again.

 

Summerslam 2013 did not draw a disappointing number.

 

It was originally reported as 296,000 buys. They later revised the number to 332,000 buys, which Dave buried in the WWE section at some point last year. He never even discussed the ramifications of the bad decisions that came from the original low number. That number is still being used against Bryan when it was actually a good number. Initial projections were off, sadly.

 

Compare it to HHH-Brock, which drew 350,000 buys and was considered a huge success. It's not a major difference.

 

The last figures for HHH vs. Brock were 392K worldwide, 296K domestic. The 332K number is correct, but Cena vs. Bryan only did 207K domestic. That's still a difference of 89,000 buys in their home market (60K worldwide). It did do slightly better than Cena vs. Punk in 2011, but worse than any year before that since the lull before the Attitude Era.

 

I wouldn't call it a *good* number, even revised upward. It went from being the worst SummerSlam buyrate in almost two decades, to the second worst. It went from a bad number to an OK number, but OK numbers aren't going to cut it when you're Daniel Bryan (or CM Punk, for that matter). The low original number just became the excuse to cut Bryan off at the knees like they wanted to do anyway. Just look at the history of how they booked him.