This is a blog I wanted to write a long time ago. Why can't the WWE make new superstars and why the current product sucks. I as well as most here have many theories. One thing I thought about is that WWE needs jobbers like they had during the 1980's to early 1990's.

First off, what do I mean about the term jobber. To make it clear I am not talking about superstars who don't win matches due to gimmick reasons like for example Ted Dibiase JR lost a lot last year because of problems with his valet Maryse. Nor am I talking about Morrison who lost a lot due to his being in the doghose. Nor am I talking about a superstar that is just starting out in the WWE.

What I mean by jobber is a wrestler whose job is to lose and make the other superstar look good. These jobbers were prevelant during the 1980s and early 1990s. You had Barry Horowitz, Brooklin Brawler and Mr. X to name a few. Then you had jobbers to the stars like Virgil and Blake Beverly and even Tito Santana during the early 90's who might win matches against jobbers but would be a stepping stone to Razor Ramon, Shawn Michaels, etc. A Razor Ramon vs. Virgil match might even be a main event on SuperStars Saturday morning.

Here's a few reasons why we need these jobbers both the regular ones and the jobber to the stars back.

First off, the WWE is giving away too many matches that should be on PPV and one of the reasons is to fill up hours of RAW and Smackdown and their other shows.

Before the Attitude Era, a high calibur match would only take place on Saturday Night Main Event. Later on RAW would feature great matches but even the early years of RAW, the WWE rarely put on top matches that should have been saved for WrestleMania or SummerSlam. Ric Flair and Mr. Perfect as well as Shawn Michaels and Marty Jennetty fought on RAW which are exceptions but Ric was heading over to WCW so a WM match was out of the question and Michaels and Jannetty had already faced each other at a PPV so a match on RAW didn't hurt anything.

But many matches on early RAWs were still a Shawn Michaels going against a lower opponent like Max Moon or Jim Duggan. Or a newcomer like Razor Ramon vs. Virgil. Or using the Jannetty/Michaels match, they would be rematches of a WrestleMania or SummerSlam match like for another example Bret Hart vs Yokozuna took place on RAW during November of 1993.

The point I'm trying to make is that the WWE is trying to fill all this programing and by doing so they are wasting matches that should be at a PPV event. For instance in recent memory John Cena vs. Rey Mysterio or Edge vs. Christian should not have been on RAW but on PPV instead which would make PPV's more important and make the WWE more money. Likewise they do the same matches constantly on RAW and Smackdown because they are trying to fill up programming.

Bring back the jobber system so you can fill a RAW and Smackdown. For example SuperStars used to have all jobber matches and the WWE filled an entire hour of programing. Razor Ramon, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart went against jobbers and looked great. And I always watched SuperStars back then. Also WrestleMania and SummerSlam meant something because many of the matches weren't rehashes of RAW or Smackdown matches. Have one or two main event matches on RAW and Smackdown but you can wind up doing more with less.

This brings me to my next point. In a match you have a winner and a loser. I want to use MVP as an example here even though he left the WWE some time ago since his WWE career illustrates my point. At one time the WWE wanted MVP to be a top guy and to be honest the guy seemed to have everything: good on the mic, athletic, different look.

So on RAW tonight, the WWE will put MVP against Kofi Kingston to give both guys something to do that night and appear on TV. Since Kofi has a program with Orton, that means the WWE has to sacrifice MVP to Kofi on RAW. Meanwhile Orton gets the better of Kofi which means MVP losing meant nothing. Right there I had a guy the WWE was trying to establish lose to another guy that was trying to be established and that guy lost his feud with another Superstar. Now if we had the jobber system in place Kofi could beat a jobber. He could still lose to Orton but at least MVP wouldn't be sacrificed. And likewise have MVP beat a jobber. This way MVP and Kofi are on the show and they look good.

You see all these guys the WWE trys to establish lose to other guys who are trying to be established. That's part of the reason why the WWE isn't making new superstars. Because a guy loses enough times, he won't get over. Without real jobbers, the superstars the WWE tries to establish become jobbers themselves.

Let's go back to the early 1990's. The WWE was trying to establish Razor Ramon as a top Superstar. Well they succeeded even though he lost his first two PPV events. He had a PPV platform to look good against Bret Hart and even though he lost, it didn't hurt his career. Razor only lost at big events not at weekly televised events. I know he was involved in the 1-2-3 Kid storyline but that was well done and still made Ramon look strong.

Save Kofi vs. MVP at a PPV so that they both have a platform and you aren't just using MVP to make Kofi look strong against Orton. And MVP as well as Morrison and other wrestlers are being seen as fodder to make some other superstar look good before their PPV feud. Morrison, MVP, etc were meant to be built up instead of being just fodder. That's why the jobber system was important. You could have Giant Gonzalez, Vader, Ramon beat up a bunch of jobbers but not hurt a superstar the WWE was trying to establish.

I don't know if what I'm saying is making any sense but the WWE can't have a wrestler like Morrison lose on a weekly basis, come back and win a few and the WWE expects the crowd to get behind them. I guess that's my main point. MVP lost many matches for awhile and when he went to winning, he didn't have the crowd behind him. He couldn't get that magic back and Morrison and many others look to share the same fate. The jobber system could prevent this from happening.