On a weekly basis, PWTorch staffers James Caldwell and Parks: have a Lounge-style chat reviewing the week in TV wrestling and looking ahead to what's next for key storylines, matches, and future events. An occasional "Seinfeld" or "The Office" reference is also mixed in for good measure.

James Caldwell: This is PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by PWTorch columnist Parks: for our weekly TV wrestling chat. Greg, in the time since we hosted the post-Summerslam Livecast on Sunday night, WWE has created even more questions with Monday's Raw episode that left me indifferent to the current product until they start sorting some things out. What's your take on where WWE stands post-Summerslam and your thoughts on Monday's Raw, overall?

Greg Parks: Indifferent? Really? That's surprising. I figured fans would either hate that more questions were brought up on Monday, or love the intrigue behind it. But, indifferent...that surprises me. We've got a lot of players in this thing after Monday, so I'm interested to see how WWE sorts it all out in the coming weeks. It's not as hot as the "C.M. Punk shoots on WWE" angle and storyline, but I think this one could have some legs, too, especially bringing in Nash (though he didn't overly impress me with his mic work Monday night).

Caldwell: To me, there are too many moving parts, too many new characters, and too many characters whose motivations are unclear at this point. I think a little of that is good for a show that goes 52 weeks out of the year, but I feel WWE has added too much to the pot right now, so I'm just sitting back waiting to see what materializes. As a viewer watching Raw, I didn't feel emotionally moved one way or another. I thought the Nash-Punk promo exchange was a mistake with both men tearing each other down a la Rock and Cena so that no one looks good. And, I don't see Nash wrestling. But, they could have a surrogate wrestle for Nash and clean up some things to make the feud worthwhile. I think WWE really needs to bring some clarity to this right now. As for Nash, do you see him as a long-term player or do you think he's just someone for Punk to be occupied with and separated from Cena and/or the title picture temporarily?

Parks: I'll say that I don't even know if this'll lead to a Punk vs. Nash match. Yes, it appears that way after Monday but things could shake out further with a different direction. That said, if Nash does get in the ring, Punk would be one of the few choices that would make sense from a workrate/aesthetic sense. The fact that you're not emotionally invested in this, given that Cena (who crowds are hot for one way or the other) and Punk (who hardcore fans adore to the point that I think some are becoming blinded by their love of Punk when talking about the quality of shows/matches) really speaks to a problem WWE has if they've got those major players involved yet some people just don't feel that emotional involvement.

Caldwell: I think part of the issue is WWE's storyline direction has been so clear for so long - John Cena is the top face, Vince McMahon is the over-arching authority figure, and various heels have been rotated in and out to essentially be fed to Cena. Now, all of a sudden, Cena seems somewhat shady, Punk is a different type of potential top face, McMahon is gone, Hunter is shady (or is he?), Stephanie is back, Nash is back, I'm not sure who's lying and who's telling the truth, Laurinaitis gives me the creeps, Hunter said he was going to talk to Cena at the end of the show, but didn't, and Michael Cole is not the person to help walk through the audience all of this. So, in an effort to give the appearance of change, WWE has seemingly blown the whole thing up in two months and the pieces are still falling from the sky. I just need some answers. As for the Big Mystery of who sent "Hitman" Nash the text to stick the champ, do you agree it was Steph using Hunter's phone? If so, what do you think it leads to?

Parks: I think it seems that one, and it could be a situation where, and I've seen this suggested elsewhere, that Steph reveals that what Hunter said about the family being behind Vince's removal as COO is not true. So then that would lead to a Steph-Hunter power struggle or at least Steph's man (Del Rio) against Hunter's man (Cena/Punk) at some point. I don't think that's the best way to go, but it's one possible scenario.

Caldwell: I could see both of those items tying together. Hunter "re-hired" Cena (or didn't have him fired), which went against Vince's orders, and Hunter allowed Punk to return to WWE despite what Punk said about the McMahon Family and Vince himself. So, that would be Vince speaking through Stephanie to "stick the champ" since Vince doesn't like either one. Add that together with what you said about Hunter's claim about the Family perhaps not being true and Stephanie could be working with Vince to regain control of the company. At the end of the day, I definitely see a Hunter-Stephanie power struggle returning. My concern is whether they get to what you put in parenthesis (very appropriately): are the wrestlers who are having matches and selling PPVs the central focus or is it completely the McMahon Family Vanity Hour? That's my chief concern with this right now. I think it could be intriguing to give WWE a fall season hook each week vs. football, but I also fear the execution. Especially when WWE changes on the fly so often. Any additional thoughts on that aspect, Greg, or - speaking of the actual wrestlers - your thoughts on the Del Rio-Cena feud officially starting up?

Parks: I just think any kind of Steph vs. Hunter feud is the wrong way to go, because it guarantees to be the focus on Raw, and like you said, that should be on the wrestlers. I thought Cena's promo at the end featured intensity he was lacking previously and that's generally when he cuts his best promos, yet his comments about Del Rio not being a "real" champ don't ring true: Heck, even Punk, who LOST to Del Rio, didn't have a problem with it earlier in the show, yet Cena has a problem with how Del Rio won it? And didn't Cena recently defeat Rey Mysterio in a similar situation (although not exactly the same) for the title a few weeks ago? It just felt like they were trying to get to Del Rio vs. Cena and I don't think they did so in a way that makes sense. They seemed to want to start a Cena vs. Del Rio feud right now whether it makes sense or not, and as I said, I don't think the way they got there made a ton of sense.

Caldwell: That's exactly why I said Cena was acting shady earlier in the Chat because the key points in Cena's promo made zero sense. So, either whoever scripted the promo (or if Cena came up with it himself) was completely out of touch with reality or it's pointing to Cena's character changing. This is where I battle Traditional WWE vs. "New WWE" Cena-based booking principles trying to figure out if they're about to blow this thing wide open. Do they reveal Cena as the Corporate Champion who was given the easy title match vs. Rey after the tournament, that Hunter "missing Cena's foot on the ropes at Summerslam" was a coordinated distraction, that Miz and R-Truth (Cena's last two title opponents) are on to something with a Cena Conspiracy, and now Cena is starting to lie? Or, does that have nothing to do with anything and it was just an illogical promo trying to set up Cena vs. Del Rio? I'm conflicted, Greg.

Parks: I can see how. Asking a lot of qeustions like this and creating an air of mystery is something WWE has attempted before (who blew up Vince's limo?) and it's an arc that many scripted shows trot out; in fact, many are based on such mysteries. I guess I'm more willing to play along and see how things develop than you are. I don't get the sense of frustration with all that is going on...yet.

Caldwell: Usually I'm willing to play along to see how certain "wrestling mysteries" play out, but this one has me concerned, especially whether the actual wrestlers and wrestling aspect gets pushed completely out of the way. As for Del Rio as champion, (a) how long do you think he keeps the title and (b) do you see hi facing Cena at Night of Champions in a singles match or a multiple-person match?

Parks: I would guess a multi-person match, whether Punk, Miz, Truth or someone else like that is involved. And if they keep the belt on Del Rio for a while, the multi-man match doesn't bother me, because they'd be holding off on Cena vs. Del Rio, which is the one they're hoping to draw money with. Let it simmer and don't turn it into Christian vs. Orton where you're giving it away every month, only with different stipulations. As for how long Del Rio holds the title, I'll give my standard answer: "I'd like for it to be a while to keep the title from being hot-shotted, but really, I have no clue how long they'll keep it on him."

Caldwell: And hot-shot is the name of the game right now, so I will definitely accept your standard answer! I agree on saving Cena-Del Rio in a singles match for a future PPV. I could also see WWE putting Cena on the chase with Del Rio winning match #1 by nefarious means, then having the feud escalate through a series of singles matches on PPV. It's the old Randy Orton As Heel Champion formula, which was really played out a few years ago. I'm not totally against WWE going that route a few years later, but I like your idea of a multiple-man match in this instance to keep Cena on the chase. That is, unless they blow this thing open and Cena's character changes! And I'm back to my conflict evaluating this storyline. As for Rey, it sounds like he could be out for just a little while or it could be longer depending on the severity of his knee injury. If Rey is gone for a prolonged absence, do they have anyone to step up in his place after #1a Cena and #1b Punk on the babyface depth chart?

Parks: Or, if they have the multi-man match and Cena wins anyone. I would think Morrison could, but you never know how they're going to book him going forward. He got the win Monday night, so hopefully they'll be back to booking him effectively. Bourne and Kingston had a non-title win over Otunga and McGillicutty, and it'd be nice to see them as a tag team if WWE is seriously considering improving the depth in that division. However, Kingston could be utilized as that #2 or #3 babyface. See, if instead of having him lose in three minutes to guys like Del Rio, or be stuck in neutral in the mid-card, if they had him in this tag team with Bourne months ago and built him up through that division, he may be ready to be taken seriously as a top tier babyface at this point (which is what part of the tag division should be- putting guys with promise together and if an injury strikes, hopefully they can be separated and moved into the singles division effectively).

Caldwell: Morrison vs. Truth has been a consistent mid-card feud for a while now (even continuing during Morrison's injury), but it seems like everything else has been week-to-week without pre-planning, like you mentioned. I think Kofi is stuck in neutral and Bourne has been so up-and-down on TV this year that I don't think the audience is ready to get behind him. Same with Morrison, who suddenly went from a head-scratching loss last week to a solid Falls Count Anywhere win this week. At some point, WWE has to start thinking about that next level of stars and have them ready to be rotated in a top slot. Greg, looking at the rest of Raw, I keep thinking of the Ziggler-Riley-Swagger-Vickie-announcers segment. What was your evaluation of that, plus any other smaller items on Raw that stood out to you?

Parks: I was surprised to read that Wade enjoyed the commentary; I thought it was awful. Yes, Ziggler showed some personality and Vickie was...well...Vickie, but the whole stealing of JR's hat thing and then stepping on it was just so stupid but par for the course for WWE. The match was okay but it was clear based on commentary that it didn't matter, plus the finish was botched. The only thing I liked was the possibility of a Vickie stable with Ziggler and Swagger. Gives Swagger something to do and gives a new dimension to Vickie/Dolph, which has been stale for weeks, if not months now.

Caldwell: I think we have the exact same thoughts on that segment, as I thought whatever entertainment value was created was completely wiped out by the commentary and how the match was presented, then I thought the redeeming quality was seeds planted for a possible Vickie stable. I liked that backstage segment "saving" the entire bit. Otherwise, it was clearly WWE "taking a break" from the important stuff just to entertain McMahon, especially with the Ross hat gimmick. On the Divas side, the DOD heels are still after Kelly Kelly, just like before Summerslam. Nothing really new there, but any thoughts on the Divas division this week?

Parks: Nothing really new. Again, having Beth and Nattie on the same side makes even more of a mockery of the brand split, even if they are "only Divas."

Caldwell: Brand split? Anonymous Raw GM? Nexus higher power? What is this you speak of, Greg?! I agree, and it's happening again on Smackdown with Raw wrestlers coming over to Smackdown without it being treated like a big deal. Speaking of the Raw GM, I'll throw out the Question of the Day to you. Do you think a reveal will ever happen and, if so, who's your top few candidates?

Parks: I feel like if they did want to reveal it, they wouldn't have been ignoring it the past few weeks. It may be something done down the line, like when Hunter came back and nothing was acknowledged about his feud with Sheamus 'til he squashed him. I see something similar with the GM, where they just mention who it was in passing as if it were no big deal. But yeah, they could use that as another aspect of this "mystery" with Hunter-Steph-Nash-etc., but they don't seem to be addressing it for whatever reason.

Caldwell: Agreed it may never be revealed or discarded in a quick interview. It could also be McMahon's way of revealing he was the Raw GM the whole time (even if that wasn't the plan going all the way back to the beginning) and he disappeared for a while as part of his "firing." They could go from there with that explanation. Greg, anything else on Raw or shall we move on to NXT?

Parks: Let's go to NXT: The return of Maxine seemed to be the big news this week. James, they're supposed to be subtracting people from the season, not adding! What is going on here?

Caldwell: I think they were looking for a way to freshen up Bateman's already-stale character and establish him as a heel, plus they're running out of talent! What better way to keep this season going another 25 weeks than bring back Season 3 Rookies? I thought the show this week was actually decent, but they still have so many issues with the show not even resembling NXT at times. Not that it really matters, of course. But, what were thoughts on Matt Striker Week 3 in the ring?

Parks: I Tweeted during the show that I could see him being sent to FCW to train some kids; he's already got the teaching aspect down, and he's pretty good in the ring too- good enough to train anyway. Other than that, I'm not sure if his in-ring return means much.

Caldwell: I think it gives Darren Young (and possibly Bateman in future weeks) a way to stand out working with an actual established personality on the show. They really clicked in that five-minute match and Striker plays a solid babyface who actually connects with the audience, which is rare for NXT. I'm all in favor of this program, although I don't see how they extend it much longer. Any other thoughts on NXT, Greg?

Parks: We're running short on time, so let's move to Smackdown. Orton is once again the champ after Summerslam and of course Christian will have a re-match clause. Any end in sight for this one, James? Do we see another singles match at N.O.C or do we get a multi-man match?

Caldwell: You know, I think it's over between Christian and Orton. On the pre-game show before Summerslam, they talked about it being the Final Encounter and I think the match they had at Summerslam (especially the finish paying tribute to the first match) was a sign of the end. I think it's time. Where they go from here with Christian, though, will be really interesting. What do you think they do with Christian post-title feud?

Parks: The top four guys on Smackdown are Henry, Sheamus, Orton, and Christian. I'd be surprised if they moved on from Sheamus vs. Henry already but if they move to Orton vs. Henry, the obvious choice for Christian is him vs. Sheamus. I don't know if there are any other strong faces for Christian to take on. Daniel Bryan could be one, and I'd enjoy that feud, but he just got into it with Wade Barrett, so it's the same situation there as Henry vs. Sheamus

Caldwell: Right on. Sheamus-Henry seems like it's only on Chapter 2 or 3, especially with the non-finish at Summerslam. I'd like to see Bryan-Barrett continue, too, and save that Bryan-Christian "MITB feud" for this fall. I could see Christian try to "talk Bryan into" putting the briefcase on the line down the road, with Christian desperate to get back in the title picture, with Bryan's case being his way back in. So, I think it will be interesting to see if the likely end of Orton-Christian means the end of other feuds just starting or if the Henry-Sheamus and Bryan-Barrett feuds get some more time to develop. I like where Smackdown's at right now with some options up and down the card. What about Cody Rhodes's IC Title win - was that surprising or a good move? ... Or, a surprising good move?!

Parks: I like your idea of Christian trying to goad Bryan into putting the briefcase on the line- totally within his character to do so. As for Cody, I think it's the right move. Zeke wasn't showing enough improvement or fan reaction to warrant the title being on him. Only thing is, without the title, I wonder if that's a sign they're not happy with him and his push disappears. I like the IC Title on Cody.

Caldwell: I like Cody as IC champion, too. It gives him something to work with before he possibly jumps into the World Title picture down the road. As for Zeke, yeah, I think they jumbled his push once he was given the title, but the fan connection wasn't there. Speaking of fan connections, Sin Cara is back...but not the real one. What's your take on Fake Sin Cara and will the audience buy it or will they figure it out eventually?

Parks: I don't think they'll buy it, and if they do, not sure they'll care especially after the performance Hunico put on on Smackdown this past week. Now what they do when Mistico comes back...whether they do a feuding Sin Caras, put Mistico back in like nothing changed, or don't bring him back altogether...that will be interesting to see.

Caldwell: I think WWE will have to put the real Sin Cara on the Mexico tour, but I could see WWE keeping up this Fake Cara charade for a while and just play it up like "he gained weight during his injury time." Who knows, maybe the U.S. audience will eventually like the fake one better than the real one. I think there's some of WWE trying to prove a point they can create a character and it doesn't matter who's under the mask to "reality-check" Sin Cara. Greg, we'll tackle Impact next week since we're running up against the Livecast. Any other thoughts or plugs before we call it a Chat?

Parks: I'll be Tweeting live during Impact tonight, so follow me then. Other than that, and the usual Gonzo & The Greg this weekend (top five greatest managers in history!) plug, I guess that's it.

Caldwell: Excellent! I'm looking forward to that Bobby Heenan discussion. Thanks for the chat, Greg, and we'll talk again next week!

Parks: Look forward to it as always!

We suggest these recent related articles...

CALDWELL'S WWE "NXT: HOUSTON" LIVE RESULTS 9/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of Balor, Joe, Bayley, more from debut show in Texas

CALDWELL'S LIVE REPORT - 7/12 Lone Star in Houston, Tex.: Alberto El Patron no-shows, Dreamer vs. Hoyt new main event; plus Duggan, Snitsky, Cabana vs. Mahal, Joey Ryan, Rowe vs. Hernandez, Ivellise, Catrina, Houston Carson, one title change, more

CALDWELL: A Top 10 for 10 Years - Hall of Fame, George, Sweet Tea, Studio B, Duke, Three-Pack, and you!