I think that people are expecting too much from Rhodes & DiBiase at this point

[Juan]

I read a lot about how these guys aren't interesting, that they're boring, that they're bland, that that they need to be pushed outside of Legacy and that they're only where they are because of who their fathers are.

I think the latter argument is bullshit. Some of the greatest wrestlers of our generation got their start in the business because of who their fathers were. To discredit Rhodes and DiBiase because of it is completely asinine.

Cody Rhodes has been wrestling since 2006 and has been on WWE TV since 2007. That's a whopping 3 yeas experience, yet people have completely written him off already. Now, I'm not saying that Rhodes is a future world champion, I'm also not saying he isn't, but my point is that its entirely too early to condemn Cody Rhodes a failure.

Ted DiBiase is the one that most people think has the most potential, but like Rhodes, has been wrestling for only 3 years and has been on WWE TV for a little over a year. Regardless of that fact, some people have expressed interest in a DiBiase singles push.

Call me crazy, but I don't really see too much difference between these two guys. Granted, Rhodes is a little greener on the mic, but overall I think they are pretty much in the same place. I don't know how people can say that DiBiase is miles ahead of Rhodes, when they both have only a handful of singles matches and most of their tag matches are 6-man tags.

If the Attitude era has taught as anything, is that most guys don't find their niche and don't enter their prime until they have been in the business for about 10-15 years. So how is it that Rhodes and DiBiase can labeled failures? Sure, if they were incredibly over right now, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but even then I don't the'd be ready for singles pushes.

I dunno, I'm kind of rambling now.

[Hanso Amore]

I agree. The way the WWE runs its development, is they grab young guys just starting, throw them on TV green and hope it works out.

Its not like 15 years ago where you had to earn your way up and most people didnt hit the big time until they had at least 5 years under t heir belts.

[Hanso Amore]

I mean, look at HBK, HHH, Beniot, jericho, Eddie, Val Venis, Edge, etc who all were pretty seasoned by the time they made their WWE debuts.

I think that is why Punk had such an easy time moving into a main event role...he was well developed and experienced before his WWE debut.

Thats why Danielson has never signed on with the WWE...Regal told him he needs to go overseas, and continue to learn before he makes the jump.

[Theo Dious]

Yeah, everyone is bitching about them being underused in their current position, but they'd bitch even harder if they were ME-ed and then dropped for sucking at it. The voices that cry about what's done with them are the same voices that cried loudest at WWE for pushing Orton too soon and scaling him back when he proved less than ready for it.

[thedamndest]

Three years is absolutely not enough time for a rookie to become a successful professional. I just hope that by the time they're "ready" they aren't totally buried by the way that have been booked in Legacy because that is a large part of my gripe. They may be rookies, but they don't need to be booked like hired goons, and even after Legacy there is plenty of time to continue to develop before even considering a legitimate main event run.

[FourFifty]

One thing you have to consider is we generally live in an instant gratification society with ADD. If something doesn't grab our attention in 7 seconds we disregard it as anything with any depth.

[Afterlife]

This has been on my mind a lot lately. I really don't see a major difference between the two of them, except that Cody doesn't have a "real" finisher. I also think it's finny that people call them failures while they're working as backup for one of the worst wrestlers on the WWE roster. But perhaps that's another thread, entirely. Either way, my old sig used to say "Watch before you bitch", and I think, in terms of actual careers, the preemptive naysayers may want to take that into consideration.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I haven't read this yet, but I think people are expecting more from them because they're already in "main event" roles.

[#1-norm-fan]

Three years is absolutely not enough time for a rookie to become a successful professional.

Agreed. They also shouldn't be getting so much air time if any at all though. And in that way, the whole "who their fathers are" thing is a legit gripe...

[Afterlife]

They shouldn't be on the air? :wtf:

[#1-norm-fan]

It takes most guys a LOT longer to get on TV. They have last names that are, fair or not, give them a reason to be on TV. However they aren't being taken advantage of. Give some guys with more talent some airtime.