For the longest time myself and other writers and editors thought that Frank Castle's shortcoming was that he was always killing off his villains and there was no rogues gallery being assembled for him. The consensus was that he could re-win the affections of the readers by having gunbattles with a better class of lowlife. Every effort came to nada as none of the new meanies caught on... It's not until now that I realize that not only was the Punisher the villain on his own book but he had no one to contrast with. We could have him battling to the death in stinking back alleys and abandoned warehouses with some amoral, gun-crazed, homicidal maniac. But that description is the Punisher. You kind of reach a point of diminishing returns where the readers don't care who wins that kind of fight. That's why he did so well when he crossed over. By fighting an established hero he achieved what he lacked in his own book; a compelling conflict. Yeah, if I knew then what I know now I would have proposed a recurring goodguy for the Punisher titles. A Van Helsing, a Jean Valjean, a Lieutenant Jacobi to relentlessly pursue the Punisher month in and month out. A super virtuous man of morals and conviction who would fight to end Frank Castle's misguided vigilante spree. This would have added the tension and conflict and contrast that the titles needed. There'd be a reason to pick them up every month.