ShareThis Page

LaBar: Matt Morgan to return to WWE; who would be best opponent?

| Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, 12:24 a.m.
TNA Impact Wrestling
Matt Morgan

Wrestling fans can submit questions on Twitter by using the hashtag #TribWrestling or emailing me during my radio show at 3 p.m. Tuesdays on Trib Live Radio.

@bulla4040 #TribWRESTLING if Matt Morgan does return to WWE, how would you book his return Matt Morgan as the big bad heel against Dolph Ziggler.

Morgan is a big man. He's near 7 feet tall, and nobody of that size should be a babyface. It's too hard to get sympathy on them. It's illogical to not use them as a heel because you're that big, you should be a big bully. Ziggler is the perfect guy to work with for several reasons:

1: Morgan would be a fresh new name on the roster, which draws a certain amount of attention out of fan curiosity. Ziggler would benefit from being involved in a story that's topical, and Morgan would get a rub working a babyface who is over with the crowd.

2: They both would make each other look good with their in-ring talents. Ziggler can bump and sell better than a used car salesman. It sounds easy to make every bit of offense from your opponent look so good, but it's truly an art. This would be a great selling point for Morgan's strength and size. In return, Morgan has good in-ring skills for his size and will be good at conveying the big monster has been defeated by Ziggler when that time comes.

3: Ziggler is the best available option in the near future. Any other babyface is either too high on the chain such as CM Punk or Daniel Bryan or not significant enough like The Miz or Christian. Ziggler has enough importance to the audience that Morgan's debut feud will be memorable and people will pay attention.

@ASHTONRED6 #TribWRESTLING out of curtis axel and dean ambrose who you think we will the wwe or world tittle first

Curtis Axel.

Both are currently holding the two mid-card titles, which used to mean they're on the path to the world titles. But today who knows what this means? I know both guys are talented and liked by the right people backstage.

I say Axel because so many of the pieces are in place when he's ready to be moved into that position. He has Paul Heyman, who is no stranger to managing guys to big main event matches. He's unaffiliated to any group, unlike Dean Ambrose, who is The Shield.

I'm a bigger fan of Ambrose, but The Shield is a good force in WWE. I don't see Ambrose winning a world title anytime soon because the faction of The Shield will be tied up with other roles and feuds.

In the end, I think Ambrose has more potential to be a better, longer and more frequent world champion. But I think if we're talking who gets it first ― Axel is in better position on the card for a world heavyweight championship run.

@BCSBusterLP #TribWrestling Could Ricardo turn on RVD at Night of Champions, and have Alberto lead a Latino stable with Ricardo and Los Matadores?

I keep think Ricardo Rodriguez HAS to turn on RVD because it looks so weird having the two of them together.

If the turn doesn't happen at Night of Champions, it won't happen. If anything, maybe the RVD-Rodriguez alliance ends soon, and the ring announcer for hire works with Los Matadores.

If anything has been proven with Rodriguez during his time in WWE, he gets over with the crowd in heel or face positions. That adds to the unique situation of him being with RVD because RVD doesn't need help with the fans. The two are only paired because it bridges the reasoning of RVD feuding with Alberto Del Rio. Once that feud is over, there is no reason for the two to remain associated.

I would like to see Rodriguez drop the microphone and lace up a pair of boots. The guy can go in the ring. I'd rather watch him than Los Matadores. OLE!

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.