Wrestling Forum banner

Why Are People Saying Daniel Bryan Shouldn't Be Pushed Because He "Already Had His Moment?"

11K views 121 replies 80 participants last post by  SkolVikings94 
#1 ·
Like, what does that even mean?

People say DB, the most over face on the roster that fans would have gone ballistic for if he won and would have cheered intensely had he been endorsed by The Rock, shouldn't have won the Royal Rumble because he "already had his moment." What? The most over guy on the roster is supposed to be limited like that? Hogan wasn't. Was Hogan supposed to midcard after he slammed Andre the Giant? The Rock was a 10 time heavyweight champion...and also a Royal Rumble winner. Austin won multiple Rumbles and had numerous high points in his career. John Cena is a FIFTEEN TIME heavyweight champ, 22 time champ overall and has won multiple special event PPVs like Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank and 2 Royal Rumbles.

Half of Undertaker's CAREER was built on Wrestlemania Moments! That angle was popular and produced great matches and made the company money for years!

So why is Bryan supposed to be suppressed because he won the belt at last year's WM?

I don't get it!
 
#4 ·
It was people who don't like Bryan or Reigns marks saying it. I even heard Bryan being compared to Cena if he were to main even again :booklel

Let's see if they sing the same tune next year after Reigns main events Mania this year.


The biggest match they could have gotten was Bryan vs Lesnar. Excellent match through a story standpoint and wrestling. Just amazing how wrestling fans don't want something that could have been legendary.
 
#2 · (Edited)
Hogan main evented 9 times I think. Austin had 2 wm main events. I think while the rock main evented 3.How much times has Cena main evented exactly?What about Triple H and it's funny because he came from a torn quad and still won the rumble.
It's just that Bryan is not their cup of tea I mean people have different tastes and have their personal favourites that they want on top
 
#61 ·
I'm holding Reigns fans, who say that, to their word come next year. You'll have no problem since back to back WM main events are wrong apparently and since Reigns is going to have his moment this year, you'll have no problem stepping aside for Bryan, since, ya know, his moment didn't happen this year.
Add me to this list, everyone saying "Bryan had his moment last year" better be saying "Reigns had his moment last year" next year when Reigns is slated to headline WM 32 as well.
 
#3 ·
Daniel Bryan should get pushed, but he shouldn't win the Rumble because the fans want 1 specific guy to win.. WWE would be shit if the most popular guy won constantly.. WWE is trying to create new stars with guys like Roman Reigns, and the fans won't allow them to. Daniel Bryan is already a star and will be as long as he's in WWE.
 
#110 · (Edited)
The thing is with that stupid decision they ruin Rollins too..

Rollins should be the #1 heel by far after Mania...

So now enjoy the pop that he will get when he cashes in to Reigns.

Bryan is already entrenched in the mainevent scene.....how fucking hard is this to figure out? Rumble has been used to light fires underneath midcarders for years.

Fandom makes you short sided I guess.
1988: Hacksaw Jim Duggan - first ever winner of event.

1989: Big John Studd (via eliminating Ted DiBiase).

1990: Hulk Hogan (via eliminating Mr. Perfect).

1991: Hulk Hogan (via eliminating Earthquake).

1992: Ric Flair (via eliminating Sid Justice).

1993: Yokozuna (via eliminating Randy Savage).

1994: Bret Hart/Lex Luger.

Both men eliminated each other at same time to become '94 co-winners.

1995: Shawn Michaels (via eliminating British Bulldog).

1996: Shawn Michaels (via eliminating Diesel).

1997: Stone Cold Steve Austin (via eliminating Bret Hart).

Bret Hart originally eliminated Austin when officials were not looking but Austin rolled back in and continued the match to eliminate Hart.

1998: Stone Cold Steve Austin (via eliminating The Rock).

1999: Vince McMahon (via eliminating Steve Austin).

2000: The Rock (via eliminating Big Show).

2001: Stone Cold Steve Austin (via eliminating Kane).

2002: Triple H (via eliminating Kurt Angle).

2003: Brock Lesnar (via eliminating The Undertaker).

2004: Chris Benoit (via eliminating Big Show).

2005: Batista (via eliminating John Cena).

2006: Rey Mysterio (via eliminating Randy Orton).

2007: The Undertaker (via eliminating Shawn Michaels).

2008: John Cena (via eliminating Triple H).

2009: Randy Orton (via eliminating Triple H).

2010: Edge (via eliminating John Cena).

2011: Alberto Del Rio (via eliminating Santino Marella).

2012: Sheamus (via eliminating Chris Jericho).

2013: John Cena (via eliminating Ryback).

2014: Batista (via eliminating Roman Reigns).

2015: Roman Reigns (via eliminating Rusev).

Dem midcarders winning all these rumbles.. :ti :ti :ti :ti

I really can't figure out what stupid excuse you will find to defend this shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPCDRI
#37 ·
We'll see. Bryan gets compared to Cena and people say "main event every mania" like 2 in a row equals 5 or 10 manias. Bryan vs Lesnar made the most sense and if you didn't want another Bryan vs Authority angle then you would've been happy. I doubt it would have been the same angle, would've been the ultimate David vs Goliath story. All Bryan, Heyman and Brock unless some big nosed guy wanted to butt his head in.

I've seen enough people say he's had his moment. When Reigns has his this year I do wonder if certain people will say the same thing whether he had a successful year or not.
 
#29 ·
I find it funny that these people say that Bryan shouldn't main event another wrestlemania because he already had his moment last year, but I bet they wasn't singing this same tune When Austin,Rock, Hogan, Michaels, Triple H etc all had multiple Wrestlemania main events. The double standards these days is insane.
 
#31 ·
It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read on this website. Stone Cold basically won 3 Rumbles, missed the next one on injury, and won the one after that too. Why? Because he was fucking over and that's who the fans wanted to see. He wasn't tossed out unceremoniously halfway through the 98 Rumble only for Steve Blackman to win.

Not saying Bryan has to main event every ppv for the next 10 years like Cena did, but to say "he had his chance" is the fucking ridiculous. Made even worse that the most organically over guy in 15 years just keeps getting pushed aside for hand-picked replacements.
 
#34 ·
This fake outrage is gimmicky and short sided.

Nobody says Bryan shouldn't be pushed, and I'm convinced a lot of people don't know what a push is, because their use of the word is flat out wrong.

Also, he is already over....they are trying to get another guy over.

What's the problem? Should Bryan mainevent everything? Should he hold the title forever? Should they bring back old tournaments so he can win those too?

What exactly should they do?
 
#36 ·
I agree with this. I like Bryan, I agree he should be pushed, but losing the rumble does not mean it's end of the world. 28 other guys lost too, are they buried?
And for a while, people were mad that the WWE were not making new stars, well now they're trying. Of course, people are upset at this. Bray looked strong (though I agree he was eliminated horribly), and Seth had a great match as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Empress
#11 ·
:punkout

:lol @ this video. 60 seconds in and I've already called bullshit and stopped listening to this guy's "reasoning". Yeah, the entire arena boos this guy out of the building, so they send out the most over guy in the history of the business as damage control, and he somehow gets booed as well. And this is a positive thing? This is Batista last year two times over. Yeah, positive...

And this whole "Bryan can't beat Lesnar since Lesnar has destroyed everbody already" bullshit is fuckin ridiculous. This is pro-wrestling, not MMA. CM Punk had the title for over a fuckin year after beating guys like Cena, Ryback, Big Show, Kane, etc and he was usually overmatched in weight by at least 100lbs, if not more. Who seriously thinks this is an excuse for Bryan not winning the Rumble and facing Lesnar? Using this theory, Hogan stood no chance against Andre who had supposedly never lost a match up until that point, so should Hogan have been replaced with someone else? Uhh, if that was the case, this forum probably wouldn't exist.

Reigns fans are grasping at straws in order to make up for the fact that their guy can't talk his way out of a fuckin cardboard box, is mediocre at best in the ring and was far behind others in terms of deserving a Mania main event.
 
#15 · (Edited)
I didn't care for back to back Wrestlemania's with the same underdog story involving Bryan. He "overcame" the odds last year by beating Evolution. If he had faced Lesnar this year, they probably would've beaten him down each week before winning again at Mania.

I have no problem with him being a main eventer. He is one and should be treated as such but the WWE has to develop new stars. The product shouldn't revolve around one wrestler. The WWE should have more than one hot babyface.
 
#19 ·
I fail to see how Daniel Bryan main eventing WrestleMania 2 times in a row is having the product revolved around him. WWE can still develop stars and pull the trigger on them when they are actually ready but right now, Daniel Bryan is the most over guy on the roster. He's the guy that should get a program with Lesnar at WrestleMania and also be the guy that beats him for the WWE world title. The fans wanted to see it and it would have only made sense to do it given Daniel Bryan's big injury comeback. I'm all for new stars being built but Reigns clearly isn't ready to be in the position he's put in so why not go with Bryan vs Lesnar?

Besides, Bryan deserves a nice, lengthy run with the title.
 
#18 ·
When people say that it's not them saying Daniel Bryan shouldn't have any more accomplishments or he shouldn't ever headline again. Some people just don't want to see the same exact story over again less than a year later. Some people think Daniel Bryan doesn't have to headline every Mania main event just cause he's popular. Some people want others to get some shine too.

Basically, "he already had his moment" ='s anyone of those things. It's also them saying it's not like he was given nothing (like some of his fans try and make it seem) "he had his moment".

Personally, I definitely wouldn't mind Bryan winning again, but I can see why people would say that. Everyone has different taste, not everyone wants it to be the Bryan show, not everyone wants to get attacked for not liking Bryan or for liking Reigns.
 
#54 · (Edited)
id like to know this too, but i've stopped asking myself that question ever since it became a habitual and unfounded go-to excuse for the bryan detractors to justify him staying out of the main event scene.

Daniel Bryan should get pushed, but he shouldn't win the Rumble because the fans want 1 specific guy to win.. WWE would be shit if the most popular guy won constantly.. WWE is trying to create new stars with guys like Roman Reigns, and the fans won't allow them to. Daniel Bryan is already a star and will be as long as he's in WWE.
so, the WWE was shite in 1999 because austin faced the rock at WM 15 after he already main evented WM 14? sound logic to me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top