lazorbeak

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>They can't rely on that prick forever, he's not getting younger.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I get that you have this uncontrollable hatred for the Cena character, but there's really no need for this stuff, is there?</p>

I'm sorry, it's almost like Rock is exhibit A of an entire alphabet of guys WWE has put in the main event despite a propensity to get gassed. Nobody saying you're "not allowed" to comment, but at the same time, it's a non-starter of a point. "Stamina" is not a major reason any WWE guy ever gets a shot at the top.

I think it had a lot more to do with a new, big feud taking precedence over Orton/Cena take 30 or whatever that was. But since the brand split quietly ended what, a year ago, for all intents and purposes, the Smackdown title is basically holding the position of the IC title pre-brand split. Which, in turn, means they don't even put the IC and US titles on PPVs.

Are we really even having a conversation about WWE main eventers needing stamina when The Rock headlined this past PPV?

Don't forget that a couple years later, after tossing other babyfaces out to win the Royal Rumble in previous years, Hulk's reaction to Sid tossing him out of the rumble is to get Sid eliminated himself (which the crowd rightly booed, although in replays they edited that out), then Sid turns heel because... I don't know, he's mad Hogan cost him the world title by being a poor sport? I think you're talking about this.

I missed some of the early show, but I have to agree with the consensus. I'm not a Cena hater by any means, but that match was just not very good. It was slow in the beginning, with Rock acting like he was burned out from the walk to the ring, and turned into a finisher fest at the end. I made the comment that five moves of doom would've been more than we'd seen all match with very little hyperbole. Punk/Taker was maybe not as good as HBK/Taker, but I think I'd still take it over the Triple H/Taker matches, which I was not really a fan of. Triple H's match with Brock was also much better; I like that Trips had to blatantly cheat to get the win, as it makes clear that Brock would've won any semblance of a fair fight. Also, as if Rock/Cena didn't have enough problems, way to call a crossface an STF, Michael Cole. Cena didn't lock in the STF for another 2 minutes. Vegas says the only upset tonight was Mark Henry. If I was a gambling man, I would've bet on Henry and Punk, because Henry really should've been almost 50/50, and Punk would've paid out huge on the off-chance that he won.

Punk can certainly be a dick, but he's kind of "old school" in that he seems to kind of love being a carny, hanging out with the boys and otherwise being social and friendly. Also, dating divas until he has gone through the entire roster. Compare that to say, Batista, who by all accounts was more private, aloof, and otherwise not exactly friendly, and it's not surprising he had more backstage incidents. I've also heard via the Art of Wrestling that Orton is pretty well-liked, because he's the type of guy that will buy everybody's post-show meal if he's out with lower card guys. That might seem like common sense, but Petey Williams's (not surprising) story of Scott Steiner saying he owed him for dinner at Cracker Barrel shows that it's not always a given.

This is somewhat revisionist history, though. Cena was hugely over and was seen as a future star even before his first win over Big Show for the US Title at WM, which really cemented him as an up-and-comer. But switching to Raw meant he was suddenly dealing with a slightly different audience (Raw and Smackdown were actually getting somewhat different audiences at the time, with Raw skewing older, and Smackdown skewing more minority), and WWE proceeded to put him over Jericho and Angle in short order, as both were taking breaks and it seemed a natural fit. Unfortunately, completely controlling feuds against two smart-mark darlings in a row caused a small but growing percentage of the crowd, mostly holdovers from the Attitude era, to turn on Cena pretty quickly, as the impression was that he "couldn't wrestle" and that he didn't deserve his spot. And while it's true that Cena has become the Hogan of the late 2000's early 2010's, that's at least in part due to Batista and Lesnar (and to a lesser extent, Bobby Lashley, who was clearly being groomed as a big star) all quitting to do MMA/not work a full schedule, while Attitude era guys slowly retired or dropped off to part time. WWE also has the annoying habit of elevating guys up the card, but then not trusting them to be treated like main eventers the minute they don't have the title/aren't feuding with the top guy. Punk talks about this on his latest DVD, how creative went "well, you're done with Undertaker, now for a feud with R-Truth!" To Punk's credit, he was able to get time for him and his stable to get over as heels, and was back wrestling in high profile programs in no time. But it's like WWE is allergic to giving somebody like Cody Rhodes a feud with somebody that isn't over a belt, even though Cody can talk and is a solid worker.

Agreed that Trish was the best women's wrestler in North America of the past 25 years, but I did a spit take at the evidence that Trish/Steph was better than anything on the WOW pay per view. I think Trish and Steph both had far more training than any of the girls on that show barring a couple of veterans that trained everyone on the roster with the same five moves. And I think Fit Finlay might be a better trainer/agent than Peggy Lee Leather, too. But yeah, WWE has no real interest in building up a women's division. These days I'm not even sure who's in the women's division, with Eve, Beth, and whoever else gone.

Haven't seen this posted here, but Chris Masters has been making the news around the country this morning after saving his mom from a fire after a neighbor barricaded the two of them inside the mom's house. Masters uprooted a tree and sent it through the window. http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-former-wwe-star-saves-mom-20130321,0,4140258.story Bring back Chris Masters, WWE!

Strongly disagree that this year's 'Taker build is worse than the last two. The build-up for those Triple H matches were somewhere between dull and awful.

Wait what? Elias Koteas has had an extremely solid career. He's never been a "movie star," but I've seen him in a ton of good movies, from Shutter Island to Zodiac to the Thin Red Line. And who could forget "Turtles in Time"? I'm sure he still does stage and regional stuff in Canada that I don't know anything about, but it's not like he's struggled for a career. I watched Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun Li. My favorite parts? Liu Kang being her mentor, and the Iron Man-y "hey look there's other Street Fighters out there. Let's go meet this "Ryu" character" ending, as though they were going to build up a big shared universe of ridiculous Street Fighter movies leading into a big epic "Super Street Fighter" film. Also I cracked up at every thing Chris Klein said or did. It's like the movie desperately wanted 1990's Keanu Reeves, so Klein just watched Kathyrn Bigelow's classic "Point Break" 10 times and then winged it. He ends up somewhere between Keanu and Christian Slater, but is way worse than either since it feels like he's doing an impression.

I'm not sure I buy that Punk won't be on top in 2-4 years, since the list of guys that have remained on top through the first half of their 40's is pretty endless. I also don't get this idea, which I've heard before, that casual fans will somehow "turn" on a heel winning a match that ends the Undertaker's streak. What'll they do, boo him even more? Not watch one nostalgia show per year? I just don't understand this mind-set that it will somehow "hurt" a wrestler to end the streak. I just don't see that.

It's a feel good thing if 'Taker wins, and I agree Punk can lose and still look good, but I don't understand what Taker has to lose and how Punk doesn't gain? If Taker is done after this year, except for maybe an appearance or something non-wrestling at next year's WM, how does it hurt him in any way to lose? It's not like it really "tarnishes" his "legacy." He's still one of the top guys in WWE history without really being at that highest level, and going out 21-0 or 25-0 won't suddenly turn him into Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin. And what Punk gains is credibility from fans that watch 1-2 events per year and still wax nostalgic about how much better everyone was 14 years ago- that fan has been spoon-fed matches that re-enforce their beliefs for what, 4 years? Taker vs. HBK headlining, Rock winning the title, Rock beating Cena at WM, Taker working programs with guys who established themselves before 2001 for the past what, 4-5 years? Everything WWE has been showing these casual fans says "yup, things were just better back then." So if Punk carries Undertaker to a great match and wins, it sends a message of "hey, this guy on the regular roster is better than this nostalgia act." Maybe it won't lead to more buys with Punk as champ, but it makes the case that he's a big deal to the fans that weren't really paying attention to his title run (as evidenced by WWE's ratings for most of it). I'm just not sure I understand the mind-set that a once a year performer has "more to lose" by losing than a guy who is trying to draw money for the company at 100+ shows a year.

Speaking of, can't WWE induct Randy Savage and Elizabeth into the Hall already?

It was holding, but I think it was a good no call. It's the 49ers own fault for relying too much on Crabtree and not using their running game/pistol formation on three tries. The uncalled facemask/blow to the head personal foul that directly led to the 49ers fumble was as big a difference maker, but got less press because it was earlier in the game. Both defenses were chippy and did a lot of stuff that was illegal that the refs just didn't call, which led to the confrontations in the first half. Still, the Ravens made plays and deserved the win. I'd say the 2011 Giants were worse. They finished 9-7, were crushed by the Saints during the regular season, lost to the awful Redskins, and needed an assist from Tony Romo just to get into the playoffs. Then they managed to squeak past the 49ers on the road and managed to beat the Patriots in a comeback. The Ravens were more convincing than the Giants every step of the way, especially when beating the same two teams.

Yeah I just looked and that was a loaded draft. He was taken 26th, and not only were most of the guys taken before him highly productive, 13 were all pros at least once. A true underdog would be Zach Thomas, taken in the 5th round due to his size, by the Dolphins. Heck, Terrell Owens fell to 89th, and was actually the 12th wide receiver drafted, lower than Alex Van Dyke or Derrick Mayes (but still above Joe Horn, who was a 5th round Junior College draft). But whatever, like I said, I kind of like the Ray Lewis thing where he gets psyched up over nothing and can inspire others just by being a pro-wrestler/baptist minister hybrid. It's just kind of his deal at this point.

If in some alternate universe Ray Lewis washed out of the NFL, he would be the most successful pro wrestler ever. He has the ability to say completely absurd things as though he 100% believes them, gets fired up to an almost comical degree, and looks like he's on the verge of tears every time he starts talking about God. That plus having a six-pack in his late 30's would make him a 10 time champion.

Yes, I do. See how the bolded part you quoted says he's the "winning quarterback"? The fact that he has played beyond his projected ability has ensured that he's going to get a big payday. That's not me being a dumb "fan" or espousing my love of "Flakeo." It's just reality. Seriously, let's move on.

Ugh, yes, I must be a "fool" to think that a guy being the winning quarterback of two road playoff games in a row who's playing in the Super Bowl matters in contract negotiations. In other news, Super Bowl winner and noted "fool" Kurt Warner says Flacco is worth a 100 million dollar contract based on his play. The only guys that have gotten where Flacco is the same way in the past decade have been Kurt Warner, Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers. The reality is that if Flacco doesn't get the money from Baltimore, he'll get it somewhere else. There's at least ten teams whose starting QB next year is "??????" and all of them would love to say they signed a QB who played in the Super Bowl and isn't Kerry Collins. Even if the team struggled it would be worth it to show the fans that a franchise was serious about improvement that they were willing to spend money to bring a guy that has shown the tools to be an elite quarterback against some of the top teams in the league. I mean his best analogue right now might be Eli Manning, who similarly got to the Super Bowl his fifth season and never had the gaudy numbers his brother did because Coughlin didn't expect him to throw the ball 45 times every game. In fact, Flacco looks better on paper than Manning did with similar circumstances; Manning had more of an issue with turnovers in his early career. Manning has since proved he was an elite QB, so I don't see why Flacco can't do the same. Warner link: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-kurt-warner-said-joe-flacco-has-earned-100-million-contract-20130122,0,1902763.story

He's part of a system and he's not a superstar, but he's made big plays and is looking good. He's going to get a big payday based on these past three games, whether it's in Baltimore or elsewhere. I mean Manning, Brady, other Manning, Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben are proven champions that have pretty much done everything. That's six guys, and even if we're still saying that all of them are elite QBs, who's at the next level? Matt Ryan, Colin Kaepernick, maybe RGIII (if he can stay healthy), and... who else? I wouldn't put Schaub, Cutler, Romo, Matt Stafford, etc. over Flacco the way he's played the past three games. And his career record as a starter is 62-30, and even in a good system, that's pretty good. I mean Arizona had a top 5 defense and one amazing receiver (but no running game at all), and they would absolutely love any of the guys I just listed.

In a perfect world, Otunga would be GM on either brand in 2013. I like everything about him that's not him being in wrestling matches. And The Rock's recent appearances really sells the fact that WWE just can't write anyone as a likeable babyface. I don't expect every babyface to just be a high-fiving Kofi Kingston-type, but Rock, Sheamus, Cena, etc. have all been huge jerks whose actions are okay because they're done to people who the crowd are supposed to boo. Thank god for the Big Show being the top heel in the company, so that Sheamus could actually be the riled up underdog instead of the hilarious racist for a few months.

To be fair, the Eagles still could've won if McNabb hadn't been incredibly inaccurate throwing the ball, with 20 incompletions and 3 interceptions. How much does Vegas love the Atlanta Falcons? Even when they lose, they win, as they covered the spread by playing exactly like they always do- get a lead and then blow it with their crappy secondary, then rely on their receivers to bail them out. They basically did some version of that 7 times this year, then did it twice in the playoffs. Also, two weeks ago I said Flacco wasn't a top 10 QB and was barely top 15... after that win, I think I'd put him in my top 10. I wouldn't trust Matt Schaub or other "game manager" level QB's to win on the road against New England. He's still not a top 5 guy, but he has that fearlessness you need to challenge a defense downfield (Jay Cutler and Phillip Rivers play a similar style, but I'd put Flacco in front of both of them right now, even if it's just that he has better targets and a better line). Also, Kaepernick wasn't in my previous top 10, because at the time he had only played in half a dozen games, but I'd put him there now. That kid is really, really good.

Agreed on most of these points. The Broncos were practically handed the game (14 free points) but gave the Ravens every opportunity to come back into it. If they get one more first down instead of running it, if they at least make an attempt to move the ball down the field and attempting a field goal in regulation, then there isn't even an overtime. Way too much field position gaming in OT, too. I still can't believe how completely Denver blew the coverage on that last touchdown throw though. That was just sad. jwt, that's just not a very good argument. Totally different situation at the end of regulation where the Ravens had no timeouts and would basically be giving up 10-15 yard throws every play to avoid giving up the deep ball. If you can't move the ball with two timeouts against a prevent defense, forget being a top quarterback, you might as well play for the Cardinals. The other game wasn't nearly as dramatic, and CK, despite some early jitters, looked like a video game character out there. The throws he was able to make were unreal, and that's before you factor in the 50 yard TD run. I can at least feel good about the Ravens pick, even if the Packers defense is worse than I thought. And you think the Seattle defense will have some coffee and show up to play in the second half? They're making Michael Turner look 5 years younger.

Fortunately Denver has home field, a good defense, and a good downfield offense, so they actually match up pretty well against the Patriots. This is the same team that lost close games to the Ravens and Seahawks, and looked completely outmatched by the 49ers for a half, so they're definitely not the same squad that came in 16-0 a few years back. They did beat Denver, but I think beating them a second time, on the road, in the playoffs, is asking a lot from Brady and the offense.