Roman Reigns is a pretty talented guy.
Both his supporters and detractors alike have valid complaints as far as his booking goes, but not many people can seriously make the argument that he is a bad pro wrestler. He's put on many great matches this past year and a half, and even though his mic skills are a hit or miss (more often hit than miss, though), we can chalk that up mostly to the writers giving him extremely corny and nonsensical lines.
Tater tots, anyone?
Now, much of the discussion from Sunday's Royal Rumble match is centered around Roman Reigns' surprise entry, and everybody has something to say about it. There are folks who are absolutely anti-Roman, and are going to be triggered by whatever he does and there are folks on here who are absolutely pro-Roman, who've pretty much had it, and at this point are just going to defend the guy no matter the context.
This puts fans like me in an awkward position, because if I have something negative to say about last night's events then the pro-Roman fans assume I'm anti-Roman and answer me accordingly and if I have something positive to say about last night's events then anti-Roman fans assume I'm pro-Roman and answer me accordingly. It's especially difficult because there's only so much you can articulate through the internet and people interpret your comments however they want to.
Point blank, the fact that the company sent their supposed top babyfaces out there as means to ensure that Rumble winner, Randy Orton, who is a heel, would get cheered is a problem. And that's not something I've seen the pro-Roman fans acknowledge. They're all loving it because it made his haters seethe, but what was the point of putting him in that position (last surprise entrant, final two, eliminating favorites such as Bray Wyatt and Chris Jericho) if the only purpose was to "troll the smarks?"
I understand they wanted to sow seeds for an Undertaker feud so his presence in the match was necessary, but Roman wasn't needed for the ending sequence of the Rumble. I'd wager either The Miz, who would have gotten Orton cheered if that's what they were going for (especially if he came out last to Daniel Bryan's music) or Luke Harper, who is integral to Orton's story right now, would have been better options.
I don't think I've seen anyone make a serious case for Reigns being in the position he was last night aside from the "get one over on the harcore fans" argument which is incredibly stupid to me. If Roman is not moving towards a character change, then Sunday night's happenings made no sense and all that was accomplished was upsetting paying customers (yes, hardcore smarks are customers too, lest we forget) just for the sake of it.
It's pretty fun for the pro-Roman people, and quite annoying for the anti-Roman people I'd imagine. But in my case, it just makes me less interested in having a decent conversation about Reigns and where his story is going and even at times makes me less interested in the character and performer himself, because no matter what angle I come from, I'm going to have fans running me down either way.
I just wish there was a way for us to discuss not just Reigns, but all wrestlers in such a way where it wasn't as black and white... Where the anti-Roman bunch can object to his booking or even his performance without immediately writing off everything he does or is involved in as "bad" , and where the pro-Roman bunch can express appreciation for him, but not dismiss every criticism as "hating" and accept that there are faults surrounding his booking which affect peoples' enjoyment of him.