-- QUESTION OF THE DAY 9/22 REAX: Who is your pick for the "anonymous" WWE Raw General Manager?

Justin James of Lexington, S.C.: For quite some time, I thought Michael Cole was the anonymous GM, especially with his delivery feeling more like promos and less like someone reading off of a screen (okay, a sheet of paper on the keyboard). Monday’s decision overturning Daniel Bryan’s loss made me doubt that since Michael Cole's character hates Daniel Bryan. I was certain when this started that they had The Rock slated for it based on his statements earlier this year about working with WWE, and the use of various legendary catchphrases. Something didn’t pan out there, and it feels like WWE is now scrambling to figure out what they are going to do. JBL is the best choice in my mind for the role, but I highly doubt he’s coming back for it. But, really, we’ve seen the anonymous GM send so many messages during so many matches that just about every Raw on-screen personality is ruled out (other than Michael Cole), including Vince McMahon, so if they truly have someone in mind, it is someone who hasn’t been on screen in a while (Triple H or a legend), or something really random (the always mysterious “WWE Board,” Pete Rose, my aunt Ingrid, etc.). Any legend less than, say, Roddy Piper would be a real let down at this point.

Scott, Torch reader: My pick would be Bret "Hitman" Hart. Even though we all know Bret is not physically up to working a match, there have been opportunities where Bret has been teased as a participant in a match, only to be pulled out by a ruling from the GM. One such case was against Justin Gabriel of Nexus and the other vs. The Undertaker. Michael Cole would be too obvious and the complainers like Edge and Jericho are just being put in the position of keeping it a hot topic issue. Besides, those two seem to be Smackdown bound.

Greg Coleman, Torch reader: First off, I like this idea about as much as I liked the guest GM. Both are terrible. As for who it is? Have no clue. I thought it was Stone Cold at one point, which would have been cool, but now I don't know. If Shawn Michaels were to accept it, I would give it to him. The storyline explanation would be that he saw what was happening on Raw in his absence and he wanted to change it.

Chris Spencer, Torch reader: Considering the totally nonsensical way the anonymous GM has been making "decisions," whoever it is has to be okay with being painted as a fool. That said, my vote would have to go to Michael Cole. For a while I was actually hoping it would be Triple H, but I can't imagine Hunter letting himself be booked this way. I can easily see him transitioning to an on-screen authority figure someday, but not quite yet. Maybe WWE is just hoping the average fan doesn't pay enough attention, but the "decisions" the GM has been handing down make absolutely no sense outside of the context of the segments they are presented in, and half the time they don't even make sense in that context either. So, I'm all for Michael Cole being revealed as the actual GM. He already comes across like a fool, so assigning all these foolish decisions to him would be fine with me.

Nick of New York: I believe the GM is going to be revealed as Goldberg. There are a lot of hints such as adding him to the Alumni page and him saying he wants to return. Also, Bret Hart has suggested Goldberg ended his career, which would explain why the GM has seemed to "have it in for" Hart. I think they're using the Mystery GM segments to allow Goldberg proper time to get into shape before returning.

-- You can still send in your response to the Question of the Day on who you believe the Raw GM is. Send your response to pwtorch@gmail.com.

[Torch photos credit Wade Keller (c) PWTorch.com]

We suggest these recent related articles...

WWE PPV REAX #1: "I wanted the biggest event of the summer to end with an exclamation point; it ended with a semicolon and a question"

WWE PPV REAX #1: Battleground finish generates mixed reactions...

WWE PPV REAX #2: In-Person Battleground Report on overall show, reactions, more