Who else on the roster has writes, produces, edits and publishes their own content? He's clearly talented.

Here's some of his most recent work, can anyone honestly deny that these are all top drawer promos?

Yeah, no.

Maybe WWE should just utilize Zach Ryder as a content writer/editor.

Has hot-shotting a new Diva into the Divas/Women's Title ever worked? The best Divas in recent memory (Trish/Lita/Victoria/AJ/Mickie) took months if not years to finally win the title, had actual angles with heat when they did, and had personalities. Paige is only 21, won the title from some BS match, and is now facing Tamina for her first PPV match. Regardless of her excellence in NXT, seems like she's being buried right off the bat in terms of why anyone outside of smarks should care about her.

I would have had her come out that first night and say "So you beat 13 other divas, oh good for you(Christian bale style), but you have not beaten a women's champion" Paige holds the NXT women's title in the air. The next week, Paige beats Tamina in a singles match. The next week, Paige gets the pin on AJ in a tag match with Tamina and Emma. Then the challenge to the title match at extreme rules, where Paige gets the win.

Of course, AJ taking time off ruined those potential plans.

I really like the storyline they're doing with Paige. It just suffers from the fact that they have to put her in matches with people who make her look like ****.

I just realized that for all of the talk there's been in this thread from some about Cena not being in the title picture enough lately, he fought for the title at both Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber. So basically this streak of PPVs devoid of Cena title matches is currently at...one. About to become two. That's about a thousand miles from "ridiculous."

Generally people get too caught up on "He's a heel, he's supposed to be booed" and "he's a face, he's supposed to be cheered". Wrestlers are supposed to create interesting storylines, good matches, and cause the product to be profitable. Sometimes the optimal use of somebody involves that somebody playing a heel role and being largely cheered.

This is especially true if someone is being cheered by one type of fan and booed by another (NWO, Cena, Flair as examples). The audience has to care about the character enough to tune into the matches. People follow and tend to watch Cena matches because they either want him to lose or want him to win. Very few people are apathetic. Apathy is the bane of a wrestling character.

This all ties in with moorobot's theory of why Nash was the perfect heel for Punk to face. I mean I see where his logic is coming from generally, but since it was once used to support Nash I'm just tossing the whole thing out.

That reminds me of an unpopular opinion: Kevin Nash was once good in the mic. Much better on shoot interviews though.

LKJ forgets nothing. At least if it has to do with a wrestler he doesn't like.

This I'm on board with.

That'll be because he's merry during shoot interviews. Everyone is more interesting when they're drunk.

I think Nash's shoots are entertaining because he's perfectly fine with how his career turned out and isn't bitter like 90% of the other people doing shoots. He also doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks about him so he has no problem talking about others.

I mean I'd certainly hope that he's fine with how his career turned out since it pretty much should have ended at Super Shredder.

Despite his poor quality of matches I always liked Nash as a performer. He had 2 out of 3 (big guy, great talker). I was entertained and at least his size made it believable he could beat guys. Rey Mysterio may have been a better "worker", but I never believed he could beat half the people he was in there with.

Not really seeing this "great talker" thing with Nash. He was a big guy though, I'll give you that.

Give me the better mic guys from that era.

Austin, Rock, Flair.....???

How the **** could Kevin Nash not be happy with his largely undeserved career?

Foley, Jericho, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Scott Hall, Sting, HHH and HBK although I think both are overrated on the mic, and a bunch more that I can't be bothered to think of right now. Probably Hogan too, although his mic work as a face was far better.

Foley - I'd put Foley on equal footing
Jericho - No
Kurt Angle - Not really the same era
Eddie Guerrero - No, definitely not in the 90's
Scott Hall - Nash was slightly better
Sting - WHAT?
HHH - Maybe
HBK - True
Hogan - Hell NO!

LOOOOOOOOOL

Sting is underrated on the mic, although maybe he was a slight reach here. If the others are the same era then surely Angle is too, just about anyway. You may have a point with Eddie, can't remember much of his earlier stuff.

Also I find it kind of odd that out of all those names, HBK was the one that you agreed with.

I'm assuming you disagree with Jericho, but even though I'm a big fan, he got a little repetitive and corny at times.

No, I agreed that a lot were on equal footing. HBK was the only one I'd consider clearly better though that I forgot about, maybe because he had 4 years off during Nash's peak.

Sting wasn't terrible, but he didn't talk for about a year and it's more that I consider Nash a good mic guy than any of your guys bad.

Angle was a bad talker for the first few years until he took on the bad ass personality. In the beginning he was just a guy who had a crush on Steph.

Another one I'd add that I forgot. Shane Douglas was probably better.