[hockytalky]

With the move to 3hrs of Raw this Monday wanted to run a hypothetical question by the forum: Which roster would produce a better 3hr television programing the attitude era or Hogan's WWF era?

 

[Grave]

The great thing about the attitude era was that everyone had a story going, they could definitely do 3 hours better

 

[Hades1313]

The great thing about the attitude era was that everyone had a story going, they could definitely do 3 hours better

This.

One of the reasons the AE was great was the mid-card was excellent and had good story-lines just like the main-eventers. The only way this 3-hour RAW thing is going to last is if WWE uses the extra hour to build up the Divas, Tag Team, and IC/US Titles. No way they can try to make the main-eventers try to occupy most of a 3 hour show. They don't have the star power to do that.

 

[#Mark]

They could have easily done three hour RAWs during the AE. The roster was stacked.

 

[Camoron]

This is almost a rhetorical question. Do you honestly expect anyone on this forum to say Hogan era over the attitude era?

 

[Bob the Jobber]

Attitude Era by far. They were already used to filling a two hour show every Monday and had a plethora of over midcarders to give more time to.