Sometimes you need at least one super just so if you bring in someone you want or need to get over quickly, you can give him a win over the super and it'll propel him so much quicker than if you were to give them jobbers to lower card to mid card to main event which could take years. Just look at Ryback. He got built by beating jobbers but didn't become over until he destroyed the super (CM Punk)
As far as AJ, I think he could work it better than Cena because he has a larger move-set so he doesn't need to end every match the same which, although you know he'll win, will keep some type of unpredictability to the match. Also as a smaller company that's trying to compete with WWE, I don't think it'd do anything but help them. You create a true super, subliminally say he's better than Cena & eventually talk will get around to people that aren't on the internet about this guy AJ Styles who rivals the greatness of John Cena.
The problem with WWE is that they have several supers which don't allow midcarders to even have a shot. Not with the company but with the crowd. If a midcarder come out to face CM Punk then the crowd won't be into it because they know the end result, they know it's going to be short, they know exactly how it's going to end. WWE also carries these supers on for far too long. I think one year should be the maximum of someone being a super, maybe two if you feel it's not getting stale & you should also have no more than one super who doesn't squash the midcarder but instead only faces main eventers in stories with no filler matches (Ex: John Cena V. Dolph Ziggler. Cena shouldn't have a squash match against a midcarder just so he's wrestling. Just let him cut a promo)
Obviously, it's a dangerous thing to do because it can go stale at any moment, but if creating a true super is done right then I think it could be successful for the company but with how lazy writing is these days, I wouldn't trust it to be done right.