WWE: Is Taking Brock Lesnar off of TV a Bad Idea?

The last two weeks we have seen Paul Heyman representing Brock Lesnar in WWE and Lesnar has been nowhere in sight.

This is most likely due to the fact that his contract has limited dates and WWE did not want to run through them quickly, but did they remove him from TV too soon?

Lesanr returned, faced John Cena a few weeks later and then quit because Triple H would not meet his contract demands. Paul Heyman has been representing Lesnar as his legal adviser ever since.

Triple H and Lesnar seem destined for a showdown after the former UFC Champion kayfabe broke the WWE COO's arm a couple of weeks ago.

By removing Lesnar after just over a month back in WWE might have a negative affect on the press he was bringing to the company.

One of the main things working against Lesnar was how he left WWE after a very successful, albeit short, run as WWE Champion and then came back years later with a big money deal.

Some fans saw this as ridiculous while others loved the fact that Lesnar was returning. The fans who did not appreciate Lesnar's presence may see his absence in recent weeks as another way to prove that he is not in WWE to be in WWE but he is there for the money.

Personally, I do not see it that way since I understand that Lesnar is probably just following whatever storyline the writers have given him, but I can't help but wonder if WWE made the wrong move.

By having him appear half a dozen times and then disappear again it could cause all that press WWE got for bringing him back to simply disappear.

If they had him on TV for at least two straight months then the coverage would have evened off and he could have been written off TV for a little while.

By removing him from TV just a couple weeks after his big return WWE effectively killed the momentum creates by the not-so-surprising return.

What do you think? Did WWE take Brock off TV too early?