He's Canadian though.

Just like your Bills in 5 years. Yea, what up, I said it.

Hart Foundation ftw. 1997 RAW is WAR Canada-USA flag match in Halifax ftw.

Toronto would never accept the Bills... wait they are used to rooting for a bunch of losers too

imo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T10qkvV9_k8

Saying CM Punk doesn't have longevity is like saying Alex Ovechkin doesn't have longevity and it's either an absurd criticism or a stupid rule in the draft.

FWIW I would take peak over longevity, as long as the guy lasted at least 3-4 years.

The wrestling stars with the shortest longevity wrestled for like 5 and 8 years respectively, 15+ years is a lot of value for an upstart fed.

BTW, I'm going to bed soon, who's going to be up and can announce my pick when it's time. Is Cruizn63 around?

I can announce some picks, I'll be up all night.

lol wp. fwiw I hope they stay in Buffalo, same with the Sabres.

lol x2, I need to spend more time in this thread. Nice find Untouchable.

Even as a 10-year old, I remember thinking to myself that the anti-Canadian angle - and the subsequent anti-American reply at the Canadian shows - was just wrong. Wasn't a fan of that whole storyline. Maybe I was just a very conscious 10-year old...I guess spending just about every summer with the family in Chicago erased any possibility of anti-Americanism in me.

Sadly, I screwed that up...it was actually pick #8. But, we're happy with it.

^^^ Even better.

I agree, if you can get quality + longevity, that's best. But there's a couple guys who had big peaks but not a long career, and I'd rather have their peaks.

Okay, PMed.

This sentiment makes a lot more sense if you're trying to win a sports championship than if you're trying to make money and run a business for the long term.

Oh OK, is this to be judged more on long term than immediateness? Cause then, well, yeah.

Although if that's the case there's a point where going for young guys with a lot of potential makes sense, too.

From the OP:

If people were drafting for a one-time PPV then I think certain guys that had very short careers would already be gone.

This has nothing to do with anything really, but JFC!!!!

Snitsky kills Paul London, Royal Rumble '05:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QSgbGQUaA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSzGJOFmGk

^Orton's ****up on RAW.

Thanks ST, that definitely changes some of my thoughts.

This thread is awesome. When Taker was picked, I closed my eyes like NozeCandy recommended, opened the link, heard the gong, and marked out like I was 10 years old again.

That being said, there's something I've always felt about wrestling. I haven't really followed it much recently but I did from 1998-2001 hardcore, reading all the internet sites, etc. Then I got back into it last year for a few months and did the same thing, so I feel like I know the newer guys somewhat well. I always feel like the internet sites and smart fans just have too much of a hard-on for the good technical guys. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch the great technical wrestlers. Watching HBK and Bret go at it for 60 minutes is unbelievable, and watching the Undertaker fight Mark Henry in a match featuring 18 bear hugs is horrible. But overall, the number one thing is being able to draw. I think Hogan has to be the clear number 1 wrestler for that reason, I think behind Vince overall. Hogan was at the top of every company he was in, with any gimmick, and was main eventing from before there were PPVs until AFTER Rock and Austin. Unlike Rock and Austin, who early in there careers didn't get over nearly as well. Remember Rock was absolutely hated, and not in the heel type way. I don't care how ****ty a move the leg drop is, or if he's a prick, 98% of fans love him and have forever. I realize the fans have gotten smarter over the years, and internet fans make up a higher percentage, but still, people love Hogan.

Same with Triple H. I think he's being very underrated. He's been on top for a long time. It's hard for me to believe Kurt Angle can better carry a company than HHH. Not saying Angle is being overrated that much. But I think an argument can be made for HHH over HBK. As much as I love HBK and think that he might be the best ever overall, I just don't think he's been over his whole career as much as HHH has.

Most of the picks so far have been solid. The RVD one I don't like though. I loved RVD in ECW, some of his matches there were absolutely incredible, but I just don't think you're catering to nearly a high enough percentage of fans if you take a guy like RVD that high. In a perfect world, guys like RVD and Angle would be the most over, and we could see them go at it instead of some mediocre HHH main event. But the reality is, you gotta go with the guys who put the most fans in the seats.

Nice post.

So do we each put together a RAW type show after the draft is over? Because I already have the opening of my show booked, obviously with HHH strongly featured

I agree with the vast majority of that post, but the hard-headed part of me believes that, if booked/used correctly, the top all-round performers would draw the most money. But I admit there's a personal bias there because I most appreciate guys like Angle and HBK over guys like Hogan and HHH (and I like HHH a lot, but not as much as Angle/HBK).

I agree antidan, it is kind of a chicken and egg type deal. There's obviously been part of me too that wants Vince to better utilize his actual skilled wresters. And if he did it better, fans might appreciate it more. Still I think the look, the gimmick, and mic skills probably comprise what most fans see in a wrestler, with the actual in ring stuff only a small part of it. Certain guys though, I won't mention because they haven't been picked, but the internet gets behind them, says they need to be pushed, and it's just clear to me that they're really not that over, and won't be even if pushed as much as humanly possible.