Those ratings are off, far too many people in the high 80's and 90's and some strange ones. Brock Lesnar 92? He should be 95. 'Attitude' Taker better than Taker now? Kayfabe that's not true, current Taker is unbeatable pretty much. : at Hunter Hearst Helmsley and 'DX' Triple H being so high, the first was a jobber the 2nd was a lower midcard heel.
Hunter Hearst Helmsley wasn't a jobber, he jobbed for a spell as punishment but he was a credible midcarder, a constant in the IC Title scene and was actually booked to win the King of the Ring in 1996 before "curtain call" happened. 88 is a tad bit high though, maybe 86 would have been suffice, then again in Jack Swagger if an 87, you could say he should be higher....
DX Triple H was actually a very over upper midcard babyface throughout 1998 and early 1999, he wasn't that far from the main event scene before his heel turn at Wrestlemania 15. He actually had a mini feud with The Rock in late 98/early 99 whilst Rock was feuding with Foley, in fact he came very close to winning the WWE Championship twice, and only lose because he was screwed. Again, I'd say 92 is a tad too high, but he was booked a damn sight better than Ziggler and Ziggler's an 89 so I think 90 would have been fine for him.
I realise where they're going and that WWE will push Roman Reigns straight to the top. However for me, Dean Ambrose is by far the most talented in that group and I think eventually if they just give him the spotlight then he's going to shine. As soon as he touches a mic everyone else can just sit down as he's magic on it. So It remains to be seen, I think they're all talented but to me Dean was the star of that group. I think Roman looks like the star of that group but I don't think he's nearly as talented as Dean.