[The Condor]

Guys, am I the only one who looks at the 2014 Royal Rumble and sees that the entire fucking mess is not only the catalyst for the "Yes! Movement," but it really set the table for the mess of 2016's creative malaise?

Everyone points to the fact that the crowd was behind Roman Reigns to win the Royal Rumble in 2014, totally buying into him as a legit "guy," but I feel that this revisionist history ignores a few very important things:

Firstly, did people REALLY want Roman headlining Wrestlemania? With less than a year and a half in the company, and nary a singles match? Over Daniel Bryan, over Cena, over his Shield teammates? We're people truly clamoring for a face Roman to take on a heel Orton foe the title? Doubtful on all counts.

Secondly, the fans wanted one man-- DBry or bust, and the entire rumble bore this out, most especially when Rey came out at number 30. Roman was not the preferred guy, until...

Batista was left alone with Roman, and Roman became the NFC team that every fan cheers for against the Patriots in the Super Bowl. No one wanted Batista, especially with how his entire comeback was booked, and Roman was the last guy with him, thus garnering the support and cheers of the fans. The same would have happened regardless of who was left in the ring with Batista that night, and Roman reaped the benefits of favorable booking due to ironic support from live fans at the Rumble, thus initiating the rocket push that we are enduring presently.

I know this is just me bitching, but it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people whose opinions I respect that Roman was the choice of fans and thus we ought not be so fickle. Do you guys think that fans really wanted Roman, or was he just lucky to be the last guy left in that rumble and the WWE misinterpreted the support as legitimate?