View Full Version : Stables
deathtrap
08-07-2004, 04:53 AM
Would you like to see more stables in the WWE.
DX, Ministry, Corporation, they were the days
Boondock Saint
08-07-2004, 04:56 AM
I would. Evolution is cool but it sounds like they'll be gone by this time next year so. but I'd like to see one or two more. The Corporation was my favorite. I came in during that time so it holds a special place in my heart.
<font color=white>Nah. Evolution are brilliant and I don't see the need for any more. I think the days of stable wars will always be inferior now after the nWo, DX etc</font>
The Fugitive
08-07-2004, 05:15 AM
The Union holds a special place in my heart. Their music rocked as well. :shifty:
Dave Youell
08-07-2004, 05:18 AM
Smackdown need one
Transplant
08-07-2004, 06:32 AM
Smackdown need one
With what wrestlers? They only have half assed mid carders and cruisers. You could have JBL, Paul London, Orlando Jordan and Sable take over Smackdown. woo fuckin hoo
123 kid
08-07-2004, 02:48 PM
Yeah I'd like to see more stables, Evolution are good, but there are no other stables for them to feud with, the Dudleys are now kinda a stable on smackdown! But not a major stable like D-X, nWo and the Nation etc.. I loved the ol' Stable wars.
The One
08-07-2004, 02:52 PM
I would like to see a group like a (face) Flock take on Evolution. Just a bunch of misfits, tourtured souls, and grung rocker look alikes take on the poster children of Wrestling.
Sephiroth
08-07-2004, 04:59 PM
Meh...A Smackdown! Stable could be: Jindrak, Chavo, Orlando and Rene Dupree...that would rock imo.
Maybe you could throw in Haas or Billy Gun 2... :-\
Anybody Thrilla
08-07-2004, 05:06 PM
I don't like the idea of too many stables. It tends to get too cluttered, and clean finishes tend to become fewer and farther between. I like Evolution being the only stable on RAW. It sort of gives them the feel of having a seemingly insurmountable advantage in every encounter, and it makes it feel so much more special when somebody gets the best of them.
Or something like that.
mrslackalack
08-07-2004, 10:11 PM
I love stables but remember how boring and boring the WTR and the NLS was in WCW? i mean those matches were boring, on the other hand DX vs Nation was done brillanity and the 4 Horsemen, NWO 96-98, Hart Foundation, The Network and Evolution are examples of well thought out great stables can be.
Dorkchop
08-07-2004, 11:13 PM
I would like to see maybe two more. A few stables is good to me. I miss Raven's Flock, and itchy Kidman.
jindrak
08-08-2004, 12:28 AM
Take a look back at the pre-Attitude Era/Attitude Era when stables inundated the WWE.
IMO, stables can only help get wrestlers over, but it does depend on how the stable is organized.
What is the PURPOSE of the stable? Having a group of wrestlers lumped into a group doesn't do any good. Those wrestlers must be bonded for a reason. That reason is ___.
Once the blank is filled in, rivalries with other groups/wrestlers can develop. This creates a scenario of different match-ups, which keep storylines and feuds fresh.
IMO, each member of the stable must serve a PURPOSE. This can establish further character develop, or add depth to a particular gimmick, thus interest is added.
The Nation Of Domination
Dawn Marie, Sable, Torrie, Miss Jackie
Smackdown really could've used an ECW stable.
jindrak
08-08-2004, 12:54 AM
Smackdown really could've used an ECW stable.
I disagree.
Re-hashing past gimmicks/ideas will be futile in the long-run.
Unless WWE would create a NEW history, consisting of former ECW performers, then I could be the benefits both short and long term.
By alluding to the past, WWE will be illustrating to the fans that no growth has occurred. WWE is far removed from the Attitude era, thus they shouldn't do anything that would be percieved as going backwards.
Boondock Saint
08-08-2004, 01:38 AM
Take a look back at the pre-Attitude Era/Attitude Era when stables inundated the WWE.
IMO, stables can only help get wrestlers over, but it does depend on how the stable is organized.
What is the PURPOSE of the stable? Having a group of wrestlers lumped into a group doesn't do any good. Those wrestlers must be bonded for a reason. That reason is ___.
Once the blank is filled in, rivalries with other groups/wrestlers can develop. This creates a scenario of different match-ups, which keep storylines and feuds fresh.
IMO, each member of the stable must serve a PURPOSE. This can establish further character develop, or add depth to a particular gimmick, thus interest is added.
Yeah makes sense. Like with X-Factor, what the hell was their reason for being together? Did I miss the explanation?
Since the brand split, there isn't really a point of having that many stables. If there was only one roster, than the stables would interact a lot more so it would be more worthwhile. With the current lack of good midcarders on each show, I don't see the real point of having almost everyone on each roster involved in a stable.
jindrak
08-08-2004, 03:12 AM
Since the brand split, there isn't really a point of having that many stables. If there was only one roster, than the stables would interact a lot more so it would be more worthwhile. With the current lack of good midcarders on each show, I don't see the real point of having almost everyone on each roster involved in a stable.
The main goal of the brand extension was to help develop NEW talent.
What if HHH was burying every guy on the roster not on Raw? If that was the case, then the product would be boring, and dull. However, with separate brands, there is more space for established talent to move up, and for new talent to fill voids.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.