Brock Lesnar

Discussion in 'RAW' started by Brad., Feb 11, 2014.

  1. Have they accidentally used all his dates..? WWE have fucked up badly with this angle. Firstly, he returns in December, declaring himself as #1 contender, which the authority accept. After going over Big Show at RR, he's now missing from two consecutive RAWs. Did WWE not know that EC is in his hometown ffs. Why wouldn't they give him a Chamber spot? It doesn't make any sense. If he returns the night after to feud with Taker then he's just shitting on the title.

    Awful, awful booking from WWE.
     
  2. Lesnar in the chamber would have been so awesome. But I always suspected that him declaring himself the #1 contender was just a red herring, though. A tad bit disappointing, yes, but you had to know that Orton wasn't dropping the title this soon before Wrestlemania after spending the last several months as champion. Besides, I'd want Lesnar to have a longer reign than just barely over a month. (For what it's worth, there's still that Meltzer rumor that Lesnar will win the title from Orton on Raw the night after EC. I don't buy that at all, but take it for what it is.)

    I'd still expect Lesnar to make some kind of appearance at the chamber since it's on his home turf.
     
  3. I really wanted to see a Lesnar title run. I thought it would be great if he won it in the chamber, retained against Tista, then lost it to Bryan at Extreme Rules, but it won't happen. Brock's only 36. Hopefully they sort him a contract that has him working every RAW in a 3/4 month period for a decent reign. I'm not into Lesnar/Taker.
     
  4. Lesnar will come out the RAW before EC and destroy Christian and take his spot in the chamber..... I don't think he'll win, but he will be in it..... that's what I see happening.
     
  5. And ruin his momentum? They want Brock to walk into mania a monster. If he walked into the chamber he would have to be beaten. Since Batista vs Orton/Batista vs Orton vs Bryan is all but a lock.
     
  6. Also the whole declare himself number 1 contender thing was just another way to build him up. Here comes this monster and declares that he can have a title match whenever he wants, and no one bats an eye at it or calls him out. It's to sell how dominant of a freak he is.
     
  7. Brock is a part timer he doesn't need momentum.. he needs purpose, what better reason than to have him pissed off from losing so that he destroys whoever happens to be in the chamber at that time and then storms out. The next night Taker attacks him while he is still pissed about losing in the chamber and he focuses on Taker and their feud begins until WM30.
     
  8. Because momentum in Brock's position is more important. Especially into the planned undertaker match. The streak match is one of the most important on the card, the battle of legends and giants. WWE feels that Brock needs more momentum heading into mania if he's to wrestle taker. Thus why he cannot lose.

    Putting Brock in the chamber as the field looks now is a waste of a Brock date.
     
  9. If it means anything, there's been some slight rumors about doing Orton/Undertaker at Mania in the event that Orton doesn't walk into Mania with the championship. So if they decided to go with Batista/Lesnar instead of Batista/Orton (the former would be a much bigger match, honestly), Orton would still fall into a comfortable spot on the card (not I want to see Orton/Undertaker again, just saying.)
     
  10. You have to remember that today's WWE creative is shortsighted, this isn't the Attitude Era where storylines were written 3 or more months in advance, Brock coming out on RAW the 24th issuing an open challenge after his loss at EC would be a perfect vehicle to start the Lesnar/Taker feud. The lights go out, the gong hits, lights come up and Taker is beating the shit out of Lesnar, Lesnar comes back and beats Taker some and eventually Taker either chokeslams or tombstones Lesnar to start the feud. Just my opinion... I hope he does lose at EC... because it would give him reason enough to prove that he is strong... and ending Taker's streak would be that proof.
     
  11. But taking a beating the night before damages Brock's image as an unbeatable monster. Which is what they want Undertaker to go against.
     
  12. Who said he would take a beating?.... a surprise roll up pin... which is why he would be pissed and destroy everyone in the ring lol.... A little punch to the ego but a reason to prove himself.... and a reason to try and redeem himself by issuing an open challenge... Heyman vows it was a fluke and Lesnar will destroy anyone who comes out.... and out comes Taker. He doesn't look weak at all that way. Once again, just my opinion.
     
  13. If he's not gonna win the title, then it's best to just keep him out of the chamber period.
     
  14. I'm just wondering, how would you set up the Lesnar/Taker feud then? I don't think he was ever meant to win the title anyway and I doubt he will win the title before he goes on leave again.
     
  15. He's pissed that he's not being granted a title shot and so he targets the streak instead? If that's the way they take it, then that means that Brock demanding a title shot (and not getting one) ends up having a purpose. Or he could just keep beating guys into the ground until they give him one. Imagine Heyman saying that Lesnar will target and injure as many WWE superstars as possible (at the worst possible time too, right as Wrestlemania is approaching) until they grant him a shot and then one night, Heyman and Lesnar stand in the ring at the end of the show and say they aren't leaving until Brad Maddox/The Authority/Vince McMahon himself comes out and tells Brock he's getting a shot but instead of any of the aforementioned authority figures, the lights go out and the Undertaker comes out instead. Undertaker, being the locker room leader, says he won't stand for Brock injuring superstars and the next one he runs through will have to be him. From there, there's plenty of history between the two to build off of to make for an interesting feud (like the fact that Taker still has heat with Paul Heyman stemming from last year, or the fact that Taker never beat Lesnar all those years ago... Lesnar went over him twice (one time being in a HIAC match) and eliminated him from the '03 Rumble on another occasion.)
     
  16. So how, exactly, will that scenario work now that he's been absent the last 2 RAWs and Smackdowns?.... He's going to beat up the whole locker room in 1 week?
     
  17. It's in Minnesota, expect to see Bork beat someone the fuck up. God i wish i had pulled the trigger on the dope tickets a few months back.
     
  18. I forgot that Undertakers debut was February 24th. They could still have Lesnar reappear on Raw next week (and Smackdown, though I don't see that happening) as well as the PPV (since it's in his home town and all) and beat someone down, or at least threaten to.

    Or there's always the first idea I mentioned, which is Lesnar targeting the streak because he wasn't given a title shot. They can hype Taker's return for February 24th ahead of time (as they seem to always do) and have Heyman cut a promo at Elimination Chamber saying that since the powers that be won't grant Brock a title shot, Brock will instead go after the only other thing as prestigious as the WWE Championship and in doing so, Lesnar will kill what has been a cornerstone of the WWE in the past two decades. He says he and Brock will be there tomorrow night to confront the Undertaker personally.
     
  19. I'll just say this.... whatever way they go about getting to the Taker/Lesnar feud... It's going to be a hell of a match at WM30.. and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
     
  20. I was complaining about the fact that if Brock is facing the streak, as people expect, why did he return back in December, talking about the Championship? Instead, Brock could have returned in the Rumble match, had to be eliminated by like half the roster, making him look a beast, and then gone on to squash someone in his hometown at EC. That would have saved numerous dates for Lesnar, which we could have enjoyed later in the year, when he actually had a decent programme. Also, it wouldn't raise these questions and plotholes about the title.