Remianen

As I said, Campbell is way too mechanical to be really good. If you watch him, it's like trying to dance using those paper mats with the little footprints to teach you the steps. You watch him going through his progressions and you SEE him going through his progressions. You can tell who option #1, 2, 3, and 4 are and who his outlet is simply by watching his eyes. He puts all the pressure on getting open onto his receivers. Most people will say it's up to the receivers to get open and that's true. But the elite quarterbacks help their receivers by throwing the defense off. When you see a linebacker drop into coverage, you see him watching the quarterback to try to gauge where the ball is going. The better quarterbacks look off their receivers (Peyton even reverses his progression looks - going from 5 to 1 visually) which can help immensely. When you have safeties leaning in the wrong direction, that makes running deep patterns (especially) a ton easier. Relying on blown coverages can work but creating blown coverages is often what separates the 'game managers' from the playmakers. Campbell hasn't done that and I don't think he can do that. If you look at any of the Colts' games where Dallas Clark (who isn't unknown to defenses) catches a ball in wide open space, look at how that happened. Where were the linebackers? Where were the safeties? WHY were they where they were? If Peyton's looking down the field, the safeties are going to drop back anticipating a possible medium to long route and one linebacker is going to stay at home to watch Addai or Brown in case they release. The other linebacker(s) are going to drop to try to cover the medium zone but they're going to be watching the quarterback to get a jump on where the ball is going (and all it takes is a pump fake to get them moving in the wrong direction). That leaves a large soft area for Clark to curl or post into. All that simply because the quarterback misdirected the defense. Jason Campbell doesn't do that. He's all 1, 2, 3, get rid of the ball. That's how they teach it, true, but mechanical quarterbacks typically don't become franchise icons.

I tend to do that a lot. Since the majority of the time I've been alive, I've lived in major metro areas (NYC, San Fran, Houston, Miami), when I mention 'urban', I'm usually not even considering the dictionary definition. Plus, I'm pretty sure programmers don't have planning sessions to plot out how they're going to capture the Omaha TV market ("If we get Des Moines, we'll have it made!"). I've been to Cheyenne (for Frontier Days even) and I've seen more people on a subway platform at noon on a Saturday than was there during what's supposed to be a big event. To be fair, people in those places don't see a lot of things I would take for granted. Extensive public transportation, for one. The sheer number of entertainment options available (at pretty much any hour of the day or night) would be another. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are people who wouldn't have been exposed to the local, grassroots "televangelist" (or street preacher). My point was, for a large number of people (major cities tending to house large percentages of the population and all), the character isn't that shocking. And after you've been exposed to people using self-granted titles like Bishop, Archbishop, and "Black Jesus", 'Pope' doesn't resonate quite as much as it might have otherwise. Maybe you become desensitized, I dunno.

I've got a couple questions that should bring out the opinions. First, name the best NFL player of all time and why you think so. Second, name your top five all time at any position (if you pick QB, RB, or WR, you're takin' the easy way out ) and why. Had a rather heated discussion with some friends on this tonight so I'm interested in seeing what others think. I'll start. GOAT: Deion Sanders. The reason is simple. He might be the only player in league history to be the primary difference maker in winning a championship (proven twice). Adding him to even a mediocre defense, made that defense top 5, instantly. He was, hands down, the single greatest impact player ever. True, part of the reason is because he played in multiple phases of the game but a difference maker makes a difference in any and every way he can. My top 5 all time at the position that's near and dear to my heart. Cornerback. 1. Deion Sanders - the player who defined the term 'shutdown corner' 2. Mel Blount - I have watched so much film of this guy over the years. Mel was just outright nasty and I loved that. 3. Herb Adderley - The thinking man's corner and another one who loved to lower the boom on receivers. 4. Willie Brown - OH MY GOD. He had this thing where he would bait quarterbacks by laying off receivers on an outside release and when they tried to hit the receiver on an out pattern, he would jump it and pick it many times. The most famous example was probably in the Super Bowl but Tarkenton was not the only QB to fall victim to it (not by a longshot) 5. Ronnie Lott - Man, I idolized this guy. One year in football camp, they made us wear numbers that fit the NFL numbering rules and I immediately asked for 42 (since I couldn't have my regular #2). The hits he delivered on receivers made his later move to safety a natural progression. But he covered like a second skin and was a sure tackler. I admit, even though I tend to only like 'smash you in the mouth' corners, I can't deny Deion's impact. When I was a kid, I didn't quite understand it when Blount told me "If the receiver catches the ball, make him question his decision" but by the time I got to high school, it made perfect sense. These guys were all so cerebral but also physical, they really made it seem like they wanted to kill the opposing team (which is awesome!).

False. "Absolutely everyone on earth" is quite the hyperbolic statement. Besides the fact that it's not true (I'd bet money that pretty much only the people who think what the mainstream media "reports" is fact think Kanye's a jackass. That's a lot of people, but it's not everyone on earth). You are ignoring the obvious here. Lady Gaga is FEMALE. Bisexual FEMALES (especially if they're "hot") are looked at in a far different way in this country than bisexual MALES. Does that not pin the tail on the donkey? You're naming all of these examples like they mean something. You're not getting to the point of the matter. Adrian Street was not active in the modern era of professional wrestling. You're giving examples of people who were at their peak long before the current environment came to be. Besides that, Goldust was completely ambiguous and he also was accompanied by what? A HOT WOMAN (who deflected attention from him, to an extent). It was a different time. I get that Bischoff thinks that all controversy is good for business, but this isn't the way to go about it. He should be trying to stir up the Cooper Lawrences of the world, not inciting his existing audience. He's not. Anyone who lives in an urban area in the United States can point to a D'Angelo Dinero. Heck, I can think of 11 in NYC alone. Those people who complain about their Veyron or Continental or Phantom being in the shop sitting in a barber's chair, while members of their congregation are staring at eviction and foreclosure notices are pretty common. I'll give you one that folks in NYC will probably be familiar with: Reverend Ike. The difference between a D'Angelo Dinero type and say, Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart is honesty, really. One will say, "Don't let the offering plate pass unless you put something in it" and the other will mangle scripture to guilt you into it. One will say, "My success reflects well on the congregation" and the other will deny they're successful and say "it's the ministry that is successful" (just don't pay attention to the $600,000 car in my garage and the $75,000 one I drive). In short, one is an unabashed hustler and the other tries to seek an elusive air of respectability. Both types tend to be oozing with some kind of charisma though (that's how they separate people from their cash flow). I think the Orlando Jordan thing is a complete waste of time. It's not going to accomplish much of anything and it's not going to get them the kind of press they're seeking.

I don't know what to say. Let me try this: Heenan with Alzheimer's and dementia and a Swagger-esque speech impediment would still be infinitely more entertaining than Michael Cole on his BEST day. I don't see "shades of Heenan" in that pencil necked little prick simply because Heenan could entertain with NO WRESTLING at all. You could turn the picture off the TV and just LISTEN and he'd still be on. Michael Cole's mere voice makes me mute the TV and his smarmy little act isn't cute, it isn't fun, it isn't 'love to hate', it's 'stop polluting my speakers with your tired drivel'. I've seen people in this thread talk about "believability" and how big guys LOOK like they can fight so it's automatically assumed they'd tear up smaller guys. If that's the case, how in the hell can folks sit around and listen to Michael Cole call someone a 'geek' or a 'nerd'? Especially someone who makes their living in the ring. If it was JBL or Taz or even Striker doing that (you know, people who were actual workers?), it'd be fine. But you get the third least imposing talking head in the company (Todd and Josh are 1 & 2) to try to question the heart of someone who has performed at a high level all over the world (as their intro video of Bryan states) and it's not even laughable. Let's not even get into how often he botches calls. But that's probably just me. I'm sure someone's going to try to point out how Cole is doing his job making me hate him. But I totally disagree. It's not 'heel heat', it's 'mute the TV heat' (just like The Miz has 'change the channel heat' with me).

Peter, they had merchandise with that printed on it. So, it's as likely to be available as 'nWo'.

Oh and here's why Haynesworth's contract isn't a problem for the Lions. It's not that big a contract anymore. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Could-Skins-add-Portis-to-a-Haynesworth-deal.html

But they show up with Sabermetrics. All of that does. UZR, for one, is what made Chone Figgins and Torii Hunter very rich men. On paper, they're really not that great a player but when you look deeper and see the situations they thrive in (in the field), his value skyrockets. When a fielder literally subtracts 4-9 runs and/or 80 bases a season from your 'runs allowed' column, that fielder is VERY valuable. When a center fielder can cover the entire stretch of land from the middle of left field to the middle of right field by himself, that gives your manager a lot more flexibility when putting together a lineup. Now, you can put the heavy hitting, subpar fielding guys in left or right and not compromise your defense. The kid in Seattle (Gutierrez) is a good example of that. Ichiro is good in right but Bradley SUCKS in left so having Frankie able to minimize the area Bradley has to cover is HUGE. By that logic, so is 'total bases' and 'ERA'. Both require math. How 'bout RISP, OBP, ER/9, and so forth? How else do you quantify a player's true value? You have to find out what a player excels at and simple batting average isn't gonna cut it. Is Mark Teixeira's value predicated on his home run totals...or is it more than that? For years, they've had a metric to judge a pitcher's basic value ("Quality Starts") and it's only been fairly recently that "the stat geeks" came up with a similar way to measure hitters. Whether a hitter makes an out or hits a home run, going deep into counts helps teams win (since pitch counts are such a heavy focus). Four hitters in a lineup who take 6-15 (fouled off pitches count) pitches per at-bat, chases even a great pitcher from the game by the 6th inning. Since most teams' soft underbelly is their bullpen, that's a GOOD thing. In short, don't dismiss the stats because they SOUND complicated. They all make sense, to varying degrees.

Man makes a good point.

I don't think they're even in the same solar system. Any team in the league, if given the choice between McNabb or Campbell, will take McNabb. Remember, last offseason, Campbell was offered to my Broncos for Jay Cutler. The Broncos passed because they preferred....KYLE ORTON. In retrospect, that doesn't seem as crazy now as it did then, does it? So did Trent Dilfer. For some teams, that's enough to be "good" but most teams want a leader and a star taking snaps. I give Campbell all the respect in the world as a person (how would you feel if your team kept offering you in any and every trade they discuss?) but as a quarterback, he's not going to be a star. In a league where everyone is hoping Archie & Olivia have another son stashed somewhere, where every team would LOVE to have an offensive coordinator on the field (well, every team except the Colts, since they already have one), Jason Campbell just isn't that. Compare Jason Campbell to Josh Freeman last season. Whose team was worse? But if you look at the reads Freeman made (in an offense that was pretty much sandlot style since they didn't really have an OC) and compare them to Jason, a guy who was basically a rookie, outperformed the guy who had been starting for what, 4 years? Jason Campbell just needs to learn the subtleties of the game. If you watch a Brady or Peyton or Brees or Favre, you'll see that they know how to move safeties with their eyes or their posture in the pocket. Watch how Peyton will shrug his shoulders while staring down Reggie Wayne and get the safeties to react before he throws to Pierre on the other side of the field. Brady will nod at Wes Welker and get the safeties to jump before he throws deep to Moss. Campbell is way too mechanical and it's not working for him. They'll take the contract. They'll SAY they don't want to but given the fact that he can opt out after 2010 and that he'll be going back to play in the same system that got him that deal (not to mention hating the Skins new system), Albert would be willing to move and he'd probably be willing to restructure his deal. As you said, they could field the best d-line in football if they get him and keep the #2 pick. Though I'd expect any deal that gets made would involve swapping first round picks. But if the Lions do take a DT at #2, it's going to be McCoy, for one simple reason: Agent. Suh's agent is the same outfit that kept Michael Crabtree out for half the season. The two players are rated too closely to chance a holdout and the Lions brass (Mayhew and Lewand) don't like agents that do that.

I don't think it's hype necessarily. It's system and short term performance. The people you named (except for possibly Taylor, who I question being mentioned in the same breath as the other four), played at a high level for many years. Albert's had 3 good years. If you put Albert on the present-day Lions next to Kyle Vanden Bosch, I'd guarantee he'd perform at the level he did previously (even losing). He'd be happier in the system, that coaching staff would incorporate him more in the weekly game plan (designing stunts and dogs to free him for open shots at the quarterback), and he'd be "The Man". He'd probably also be more of a mentor to the young players on the team (not as much as Kyle, but more than he is with the Skins). Environment plays a big part in how players react and conduct themselves. I don't condemn Albert for the Gurode incident (it was wrong, he apologized and served his suspension) because nothing close to it has occurred since then. Everyone has a moment when they lose their cool. On every down in the NFL, holding occurs. Every one. It's up to the refs to decide what to call and when. If they're letting an O-line get away with murder, that gets to you sometimes. Hell, I've speared people to teach 'em a lesson when the officials wouldn't do their job. Our team used to do the Hart Attack on people that came over the middle (to the point where some officials would blow the whistle to end a play at first contact, rather than waiting for "forward progress" to end it). The people you name (except Taylor) are first ballot Hall of Famers (Sapp gets in easy, come 2012 and Randle was robbed by politics in his first year of eligibility). That's a pretty high bar to set, in my view. There are many good to great players in the league with zero chance of making the Hall. That doesn't mean they weren't good or great, just that they didn't stack up well either stat wise or by team accomplishments. Tony Siragusa was an exceptional nose tackle for 12 years in the NFL. He was a great character/locker room guy and the engine that the Ravens defense at its peak ran off of. But he's got no shot at the HoF. I think Vince Wilfork and Casey Hampton will have a similar issue. I'm sure you would agree that the likes of Richard Seymour and Kyle Vanden Bosch are also very good players, but they don't stack up to White/Smith/Sapp/Randle. Mind you, I'm not an Albert fan. I think he's too limited (he can only really work within Jim Schwartz's system and I highly value versatility) and I agree with you that his attitude needs work. But I can't deny the fact that, at his best, he's one of the most destructive players at a position that is usually devoid of destructive players. That's not hype, the tape says that. The reason your Randles and Sapps and Pat & Kevin Williams' get so much attention and make so much money is because they're RARE. Haynesworth just happens to be the one who got free at the right time. Incidentally, people have also questioned Julius Peppers' motor and motivation and drive/desire. They say he's prone to taking plays off, especially when the Panthers are "out of it". Oddly enough, his performance doesn't seem to reflect that.

I have to be the one dissenting voice. Just a jib of mine, I don't like the eagle obscuring the promotion name/initials. I don't think it's crappy looking but I do think it might be improved if you moved the 'Champion' to the bottom and put 'Wrestling' in its place under 'World'.

Very true! With no team in LA, playing for the up & coming team in New York is probably best for him as a player and a pitchman. Couple cameos on Broadway and doing the talk/morning show circuit (GMA, Today, etc) and he could pull a Tiki, post-retirement.

While that's true, I think it's hard to judge a player harshly when he goes from a team that's usually in the hunt to one that is rarely so. True, part of what makes those perennial playoff contenders that is their typical refusal to overspend on individual players that aren't the franchise quarterback. So in a way, he made his bed so now he has to lie in it. But in his position, would you do it any differently? I know I wouldn't. I love to win more than most things in life but there is a HUGE difference between 77 million (the Titans best offer) and what was it, 102 million? Also considering the fact that DTs who perform at Albert's level (when he was a Titan) are RARE (like John Randle rare), that drives his price/perceived value up even more. On a side note, I'm hoping Jordan Shipley slips to 45. I was watching tape of Texas's games and I think Shipley has the potential to be this year's Austin Collie (or better) and can probably make even Brady Quinn look like a star.

Saw an interesting article that made me go http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Why-the-Eagles-had-no-interest-in-Haynesworth.html On April Fool's Day, the Redskins gave Albert Haynesworth a check for $21 million (21,000,000) dollars as an option bonus converted to a signing bonus. His contract was structured in such a way that this made it possible for the Skins to minimize his 2009 cap cost and possibly prorate that bonus over the life of the contract (which they did, after the 2009 season). What's funny is, Haynesworth has an out clause in the deal that allows him to void the contract after next season. But, if he does that, he has to pay back 4/5s of the bonus (or about $17 million). Andrew Brandt doesn't think he's going to do that because "the money would probably be spent by this time next year". Yikes!

Ah, you're forgetting something very important. With Shanahan comes....the one-cut. If those three backs have two working legs between 'em, they'll rush for 1k+ yards. That system doesn't require a great deal of skill or size or speed from the players. It just requires decisiveness. The very basis of the system (take the handoff, hit the assigned hole, make ONE CUT and accelerate to full speed or contact) makes it easy to implement and reduces the talent overhead necessary to make it successful. Just look at who was made to look like the real deal in that system. Mike Anderson, Mike Bell, Tatum Bell, Peyton Hillis, Ryan Torain, heck with the exception of Bobby Humphrey, Terrell Davis, and Clinton, most backs who were successful in the system, weren't really very good outside of it (yes, even Tony Dorsett, given his age at the time). LJ is going to love it, since it plays to his preferences anyway (he's never been a shifty type back. That's what Parker is for). I'm not saying they're going to do awesome (though add a good receiver or three opposite Santana Moss and it's possible) but they'll be in the hunt for the wild card, at a minimum. That's assuming they can get Haynesworth to play the nose (or swing him out to end).

Agree to disagree, I guess. I don't think there's any way Donovan asks for Peyton/Brady money. No one is stupid enough to give him that. I think perhaps adding 'under the circumstances' would fit this statement. I'm almost positive the Raiders and Bills offered more (not a first rounder, but a higher 2 and perhaps a 3 next year or a 2 and 4 this year), just waiting on Mike Lombardi to confirm. But, since Donovan probably outright refused to even consider reporting to either of those teams, they went with what they had left. Then, no offense, I'm glad I'm not an Eagles fan. I agree with the changing of the guard but I feel it could've been done without giving up on the season completely (or potentially doing so). The Eagles have a lot more holes than just changing quarterbacks is likely to solve. The loss of Jim Johnson decimated their defense from the top down. Losing Stewart sure didn't help matters either. That D isn't plug & play like the Ravens system. Half of its potency was Johnson's blitz selection (and masking). Sean's a good coach and his methods are bound to pay off in a few years, but that's going to be a rough few years. They're going to have to draft players that can play multiple positions (Eric Berry would be a good start) but it's going to be rough breaking in a new quarterback with the defense somewhat in flux. Some of the Eagles' success on D this year can be attributed to teams not having film on many of their players, so they couldn't chart player tendencies. This year, that probably won't be the case. As I said, I'm not really against the move. I just think they did more harm than good to their own prospects for this season. I don't know of too many owners of perennial playoff contenders who say, "Okay, let's take this season off and possibly suck so we MIGHT be able to move forward, if we're lucky". Well, maybe Al Davis but it's been YEARS since the Raiders qualified as 'perennial playoff contenders'. The Eagles step back and they give the Matt Ryans of the NFC precious playoff experience, which can come back to bite them in the future. There was a comment on NFL.com that made me chuckle. I don't agree with all of it (especially not the insults) but it does have the ring of truth to it. I feel the Eagles could've phased Kevin in without dumping Donovan but maybe that second rounder turns into a rookie Pro Bowl defensive end.

I don't think there was a whole lot of choice. I mean sure, they could've kept him but after dangling him out there, his confidence wouldn't be very high and the fans' confidence in him would be at rock bottom. Personally, I think the Eagles got robbed (a 3rd this year and a 3rd or 4th next year? For a proven quarterback? Even Matt Schaub got two 2nd rounders!) but they felt it was fair so I guess it was fair. I wouldn't have given a quarterback starved team a playoff proven starting quarterback (and especially not a quarterback starved team I have to face twice a season) for that little though. But from what I've read, Donovan refused to even consider the Raiders and Bills (for good reason. He'd get creamed behind those lines) so the Skins were the only remaining option. What I think is interesting is thinking about the haul the Skins could have this year. Their third round pick is Donovan, their second rounder could be a trade for a young left tackle (Jared Gaither from the Ravens), and their first rounder could be their QB of the future. That would make this a banner year for them, especially if Larry Johnson and/or Willie Parker pan out.

By that logic, Kurt Angle's not a star either. Neither is Shawn Michaels (who is not 6'1 live). I'm guessing you don't wish to say neither of them sold tickets? As a general rule, with WWE you are correct. But there are exceptions to every rule (I just named two). If he was 5'10 and jacked, they'd list him at 6'0 or 6'1 and it would be a lot easier to get him over. And it doesn't really matter whether you (or I or him or her) sees the star power in Danielson. I didn't see the star power in the wigger gimmick Cena debuted with. Oops?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sorry but Finlay vs Regal was a boring match, did it have some good mat wrestling etc, yep. Did it have any storyline going in, not really as they where both heels in Booker's court and Regal replaced Lashley the breakup happened later on. A good technical match isn't automatically a good entertaining match, not that it can't be. Angle vs Wolf for instance was entertaining and technical at the same time.<p> </p><p> But if "professional wrestling fans" wanted pure technical wrestling without story and entertainment they would watch Olympic wrestling. That's one of the reasons UFC is doing well is because they are building fake animosity between the opponents but presenting it as legit because they have legit fights.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree Self but entirely pinning the silence during Regal vs Finley on the audience isn't totally right either. Christian vs Swagger on WWECW for example ,their first or second match up, while not being so mat wrestling heavy as Regal vs Finley it had a good amount of chain and mat wrestling and got a good pop from the crowd. Regal vs Finley is a very obvious example though but its a pretty flawed one.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Whatever, Hyde. I'm not going to argue with you, it's pointless. If you truly believe that WWE's fans appreciate a well worked technical match, I don't know what to tell you. And you might want to watch that match again. The fans weren't silent. They were chanting 'BOOOORING' throughout. I'm a professional wrestling fan and I don't prefer to watch Olympic wrestling because I DO like the stories that occur between matches (when booked correctly, which seems rare in this hemisphere). I don't know whether you need to be handed a script to be shown Finlay-Regal was playing out an age old scenario: sometimes people on the same side, don't like each other. Even Shakespeare has taken that up on multiple occasions. It led to the dissolution of the Court, which is another common literary axiom (evil tends to consume itself). It was subtle, such that I didn't notice the progression until after the whole court imploded. I enjoyed that match, partially because it was so atypical of what the E usually puts on.</p><p> </p><p> I guess that means I'm not a "professional wrestling fan". Or maybe I am because I can enjoy more than one style of work and don't need someone to hold up a sign beforehand telling me exactly who I'm supposed to like or dislike and why. You think the match was boring. Fair enough. I think it was a beautifully put together and worked match in the classic catch wrestling style. Agree to disagree and all that. I was commenting on the crowd's reaction to said match proving that they're really not open to styles that don't fit the E's typical format. Bryan Danielson's credentials speak for themselves but WWE's audience doesn't think he has star potential (which makes them differ from pretty much every other audience he's performed in front of, worldwide). As I said, a couple cycles of Dianabol descendants (or HGH or norbo) and they'd probably change their tune.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I love Skip Sheffield by the way. Him and Otunga were the <em>only </em>guys who showed any shred of charisma in their video packages. The gimmick will probably never make him world champion, but it's fun midcard fluff. Yup yup yup, what it do?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well, he's got a catchphrase, which is more than half the battle. Put that on t-shirts and look out! What it do, indeed. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Incidentally, Skip Sheffield's gimmick is what I think the 'E should've done with Chuck Palumbo. Skip is basically Chuck, a few inches shorter (at least when I look at him, he is).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There's a poll on WWE.com about whether Daniel Bryan has what it takes to be a superstar. When I last checked, a whopping 88% said "No. He doesn't have the right look" which is kinda sad. I wonder if people are choosing that because they find his look hard to cheer for, or if they simply assume WWE will never be pushed.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The former. I don't have a very high opinion of WWE's fanbase (and their relative collective intelligence), so take that with a lick of salt. Danielson doesn't look like a star until he gets between the ropes. Seriously, him and Punk could do some business (they already have). Give them 20 minutes and no script and.....WWE fans would boo them out of the building (just like they did Finlay-Regal at the Bash). I bet if he did two cycles of Dianabol, their opinions would change. <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> On the other hand, he can probably drag their more limited workers (which, let's be honest, is almost half the roster) to a watchable match.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Because Heyman was so successful with money (also part of running a promotion).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But to be fair, TNA has the financial staff in place to counter Heyman. Besides, Heyman would probably get more out of the people they already have contracted than anyone else. He wouldn't have money issues with TNA (similar to how he didn't have money issues with the 'E. It was creative differences that led to his departure, wasn't it?). Heyman would be running the onscreen/creative product. The money wouldn't (and shouldn't) be his area of influence.</p><p> </p><p> There's a vast difference between being CEO and being <strong><em>CHAIRMAN</em></strong> & CEO. Heyman was the former in WWE (creatively, at least for Smackdown) and the latter in ECW (Tod Gordon was a figurehead, for all intents and purposes). I point to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_fiorina" rel="external nofollow">Carly Fiorina</a> (as much as I love her) as an example of what giving a creative person carte blanche can do to an organization (in ANY industry).</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TommyDreamerFan" data-cite="TommyDreamerFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>...This annoys me. Okay I hated Bubba on there as much as the rest of you, but if they wasted the time bringing him in they should of done something with him before firing. And if you were going to fire this guy, WHY WOULDNT YOU DO IT WAY BACK TO KEEP AWESOME KONG?! GOD DAMN!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hmm? Did I just read TommyDreamerTNAFan#1 actually <strong><em>CRITICIZE</em></strong> the promotion?</p><p> </p><p> UR A H8R, SIR! <img alt=":mad:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/mad.png.69834f23b9a8bf290d98375f56f1c794.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Makes perfect sense though, don't it? I mean, I understand the idea of what Bubba did (it's his job, without shock tactics like that, he'd be a poor man's Howard Stern. Oh wait....) and the fact that violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated (hehehehehe), but if they had cut Bubba loose then, they would've scored some MAJOR PR points (as well as kept Kong).</p>

No offense Self but there is nothing WWE could do to attract the attention of 'stat-crunching sports fans'. Not a thing. A fan that knows sabermetrics, for example, isn't going to be at all engaged by WWE's format, no matter how it's done. Thus, the audience for the leaderboard is, as expected, the casual fan. Numbers are intimidating to much of the viewing populace, after all. The idea I got from watching all this is the pro voting isn't about wins and losses. It's about respect, work ethic, potential, and such. The way I saw it, Daniel Bryan got the best score from the pros because he's the most 'pro' of the rookies. This isn't his first dance, he's proven himself all over the world, he's a true professional and his peers recognize that. While I agree your idea could've injected some drama into the story, I think I see where they're going with this. Daniel Bryan won't win this competition. The drama will come in the payoff.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd mark out for a Bob Backlund-like Cross face chicken wing.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> And that's the exact reaction I think they should shoot for. It's old school enough to have legs on its own, but given his far superior physical look (over Backlund), would look even more impressive with him doing it, I think.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Would it be more effective if he just let go and walked out after the bell rang (declaring him the winner)? Or if he held it just long enough to not get disqualified?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Think about it. His goofy grin would make it fit him walking backward up the ramp surveying his handiwork.</p><p> </p><p> And wasn't one of Backlund's more popular gimmicks the all-american thing?</p>