|
Heyman, I don't think the WWE needs 1 or 2 guys. I don't think they need to smash guys over. Sometimes that can help, but sometimes it can hurt. They tried that with Roman Reigns and it blew up big time. And that is partially because the end-game is so apparent, and the plan transparent.
But I've heard some legendary bookers talk about their "pillars." Four or five guys they book around and protect. That makes sense, but with the way wrestling is presented again, I think some guys could use cooling off periods. That being said, I think you can definitely book people at a time like they are a pillar. Make Randy Orton the "pillar" of the US Division over a period of time where he is challenging for the only title he has never won. Obviously you do have a grander plan than that when you have a long-term viable star on your hands, but I don't think it needs to be a rigid 1-2 guy "beat everyone" plan.
That being said, they really need to commit to the guys they do want to be stars. Cesaro and Dean Ambrose immediately come to mind when I think of babyfaces that lost so much potential steam because they couldn't beat a guy when it counted. Why should fans invest in guys they can't place a bet on without missing out on their weekend beer or most recent house payment? Eventually a guy needs to return dividends so that you can say "HA! My boy did it!"
Give those blokes a chance and maybe they pan out in bigger ways than you thought. Maybe they don't catch fire and you can choose a new pillar.
|