Much like you and a some other BODers I fell away from the product around 05 till 2011. It was the Summer of Punk and the rise of Daniel Bryan that brought me back into the mix around then.
Since I wasn't following during that time and I was never much of an indy fan, the only stuff I had to go on about Bryan was the little snippets from people on the blog and what I saw on TV. Plus the poor booking of the mid 2000s is part of the reason why I stopped watching so it was easy to buy into this "burying" of Daniel Bryan idea. I never thought it was as bad as some people thought. But it did seem like at times that the "B Plus Player" comment was based on how the company really felt about Byran overall.
So after watching the Bryan "Road to Wrestlemania" doc it got me thinking. I went back and watched the Summerslam 2010 match when Bryan returned and then the next three PPVs.
Here is my question: How did Bryan go from some Indy geek who's 10 years of experience wasn't good enough for more then a developmental deal and an NXT spot, to getting fired for being too violent to getting resigned and being put in the main even of the second biggest PPV of the year?
Then that is followed up by winning the US Belt by beating The Miz clean with a submission. The Miz, the guy who would be WWE champ a few months after that, headlining Wrestlemania and BEATING JOHN CENA!
Bryan follows that up with a clean submission win over Ted Dibiase From everything I've read Dibiase was a guy they wanted to push huge,and the next PPV Bryan makes Miz tap AGAIN in a threeway with John Morrison.
That's quite the return for a short guy with supposedly no charisma who was "too Indy". Cena mentioned in the doc vaguely that he was some how involved in Bryan's return at Summerslam. I could understand that now since they are practically brothers in law. But I don't think either of them were dating the Bellas at that point. Was Cena just a fan of his work? Did he really have something to do with Bryan's return and initial push?
And it wasn't like the extent of his run was a little mid-card push with a meaningless title. The next year he wins the Money in the Bank, then goes on to become World Heavyweight Champion. The year after that he gets a multiple match run with Punk for the WWE title, a 200 plus day run as tag champ with Kane in a solid mid card comedy angle. And then of course the Summerslam main event with a clean victory over John Cena for the WWE title and finally the Wrestlemania main event with another clean title victory. Punk never got to main event Wrestlemania.
And that's not to say there hasn't been some odd booking moves by the WWE when it comes to Bryan. But even before I realized all this I thought the whole "burying" theory was a stretch.
That's exactly what they WANT you to think so that it'll be all the more satisfying for them to bury him even further.
Wow, all 80s guys. This must have been the idea of a very handsome man,
ReplyDeleteRock, Hammer, or Burrito?
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between being buried and not having "the machine" fully behind you. Even with 18 seconds and Cole heaping abuse on him before that, Bryan was never buried by the WWE. Never. That's revisionism on the part of certain fans who always want to believe in the narrative that their favourites (Bryan, Punk, etc.) are succeeding in spite of the desires of the higher-ups.
ReplyDeleteThree useful items
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think people don't know what "bury" actually means.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that he was ever really buried.
ReplyDeleteBryan always was always around, and involved in something, often near the top, even if they didn't seem to see him as tip top tier material, I really don't think he was getting buried.
Zach Ryder got buried.
Daniel Bryan was never "buried", but he was ignored for quite a while.
ReplyDeleteOf course, getting bumped off of Wrestlemania is a bit of a slight...but the same thing happened to The Miz, and he was challenging Cena on RAW just a week later, so that's not necessarily a sign of burial either.
Riggs has set the bar so high, nine if these will compare. In obtain from voting
ReplyDeleteThe only time it looked like Bryan was getting buried was his match getting bumped off WM27. But than again Sheamus got bumped too and he was an office favorite. I think people can't tell that there's a middleground between "pushed to the moon" and "buried."
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, he didn't get completely "buried", but he certainly got jerked around a lot - while his big WM win was a hell of moment, it took about seven (eight?) months of bad booking to get there. And even before that, as much as he was always given plenty of TV time over the last few years (basically from his MITB cash-in on) and was part of a major act in "Team Hell No", the fans STILL wanted more.
ReplyDeleteSo, while he definitely wasn't "buried", he also wasn't pushed quite as hard as the fans were hoping.
The Riggs shoot is legit one of the best of all time. The most entertaining five hour shoot ever. It's worth getting
ReplyDeleteBryan certainly never had the Randy Orton / Sheamus / Alberto Del Rio booking protection. Did the fans not change the Wrestlemania plans by shitting all over the Royal Rumble? I certainly thought so.
ReplyDeleteZack Ryder got buried.
ReplyDeleteDolph Ziggler got buried.
Daniel Bryan is doing fine.
It speaks volumes that in that Nexus Summerslam match Bryan got to be the second last remaining member of WWE and got to eliminate a couple of people.
ReplyDeleteThe only way he got "buried" is by not getting the Reigns style push where he just wrecks everyone and never takes a pin. And that isn't believable either based on his size. People making the Benoit comps are out of their mind since he was never over to the extent Bryan was and wasn't the focal point of the show the way Bryan has been a good chunk of the time. RAW has basically been the Cena/Bryan and some dudes show for 6 months.
ReplyDeleteThis email sucks.
ReplyDeleteInstead of them being completely discarded and forgotten about, why not add the second place shoot to the next week's poll?
ReplyDeleteAnd Bayless don't think I've forgotten about my 80s WWF request, I've just been strapped for cash here lately.
ReplyDeleteNo worries. I will still do it
ReplyDeleteBryan was never buried, but I'm not convinced he was the main guy they had in mind. Who cares? WWE walked into the new American Dream and are running with it. A working man's champion character tends to get the shit kicked out of him.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the request?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't write off his teaming with Kane as a "comedy team." When Daniel Bryan's career DVD comes out I think we'll look back at Team Hell No as where Bryan became a finished product. He never seemed right in his role as a heel when he had the world title and then with his run with Punk and AJ. The humor of the Dr. Shelby skits and with Kane as a foil really rebuilt him as a great babyface. The YES thing really took off when he was with Kane. Yes, I am making an argument that Kane deserves some credit in help D-Bry get over the top.
ReplyDeleteWasn't part of Dolph's problem is he kept getting hurt?
ReplyDeleteValentine can be a bore. For Brian's sake vote Muraco.
ReplyDeleteIf you send me DVDs or portable hard drives and pay for shipping, I will load it up with anything from my collection
ReplyDeleteBuried: "To not get what you want, exactly when you want it."
ReplyDeleteAnd being a bit vocal about the company instead of doing the Kofi Kingston "Everything is great guys!"
ReplyDeleteHe's never gonna get over without HHH.
ReplyDeleteSolid B+ email.
Maybe not volumes since the Nexus was destroyed by December.
ReplyDeletePaul Bearer got buried.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear: WWE's initial plan for Mania XXX was rumored to be this:
ReplyDeleteBatista vs. Orton
Triple H vs. CM Punk
Taker vs. Lesnar
Cena vs. Wyatt
Bryan vs. Sheamus
...and who knows how long they would've stuck with the "Daniel Wyatt" bullshit in the lead-up.
I think it's clear that plans HAD to have changed on behalf of the fan reaction. I have to believe WWE just didn't believe in Bryan because there's literally no other explanation for the Orton vs. Big Show Survivor Series main event. WWE went from a shit-hot "Orton/HHH vs. Bryan" angle from August-September and pissed it down the drain by October.
Oh that's actually pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Valentine's a crap interview. I'll also go Muraco.
ReplyDelete:laughs out of shock:
ReplyDeleteIt took Punk about five years (2006-2011) on WWE TV to win his first WWE title. It took Bryan three years (2010-2013).
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, guys that the company clearly straps the rocket to like Alberto Del Rio and Sheamus won their first WWE titles within their first year on WWE TV (Sheamus got his first reign in less than six months). Lesnar is the only modern guy I can think of that won his first WWE title in a shorter time than Sheamus, and we all know Lesnar is a freak of nature.
I won't go as far as saying they were buried, but they definitely didn't have "the machine" behind them.
I have everything raw and smackdown from 93-10 as Well and would do the same If anyone is interested.
ReplyDeletethey were rocketed, true, but these days Sheamus is floundering around aimlessly, and Del Rio has turned into Ziggler without the being interesting part.
ReplyDeleteBryan has never been buried. When guys say that, I think they mean the WWE won't put the machine behind him.
ReplyDeleteOther times it's used as a strawman argument. For example, someone will complain about Bryan's push and then someone will make the argument that Bryan isn't being buried. Well, no one was actually saying that. His push just isn't where some guys think/want it to be.
I think a lot of us throw around the term "buried" because it's an easier and maybe more concise way of saying "was made to look bad" or "that segment had a condescending or patronizing tone towards my favorite wrestler." I think it's just common sense. Yet, the anti-smark smark brigade likes to poke fun at people who use the term.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Bryan has had to have at least a couple of vocal supporters among the brass and creative. They've almost always had something of significance for him to do. They trust him with the present, essentially, and they've been rewarded every time. It's been an extremely beneficial relationship between Bryan and WWE. As much as they trust him with the present, the faith in the future remains to be seen. The Daniel Wyatt abortion and the Zack Ryder 2.0 angle from last week were really perplexing. But he's reached Jericho/Foley/Mysterio (had Mysterio retired in 2011) tier where he's going to be a major player or attraction from here on out. This isn't going to be another Benoit thing where he's feuding over the US title a year after his big moment. It's clear that enough people with say and power appreciate the guy as much as we do.
It's worth noting that with all the rumors and misinformation regarding Punk's exit, WWE really hasn't gone out of the way to bury him. McMahon has a history of being a petty asshole when he feels he has been slighted in the past (Austin, Warrior, Hogan, Savage, Denver Nuggets), but has yet to take cheap shots at Punk.
ReplyDeleteAs Heyman has said in interviews, I honestly believe that the only people who know what's what with the Punk situation is Vince, Hunter, and Punk (well, and probably Stephanie). Based on everything said before the situation, I think McMahon and Punk had a closer relationship than a lot of people think, as you've suggested. Maybe not a Warrior "Little Engine That Could" relationship, but close.
Dammit, now you're going to get credit for saying it first. Beat me to it. Very much agree with this.
ReplyDeleteAm I part of the "anti-smark smark brigade" because I refuse to humour people's wrestling-based persecution fantasies?
ReplyDelete