Final Mock Draft, 2015

Ok here it is the final mock. Just a note, i did not include trades--even though I think there will be at a few, including the 2nd overall pick, and also possibly the Packers 30th pick--so the picks represent the player who will be picked in that spot more so than the team.

1. Tampa Bay: Jameis Winston, QB, Florida State

2. Tennessee: Marcus Marriota, QB, Oregon

3. Jacksonville: Dante Fowler, OLB, Florida

4. Oakland: Amari Cooper, WR, Alabama

5. Washington: Leonard Williams, DE, USC

6. NY Jets: Vic Beasley, OLB, Clemson

7. Chicago: Kevin White, WR, West Virginia

8. Atlanta: Danny Shelton, DT, Washington

9. NY Giants: Brandon Scherf, OT, Iowa

10. St. Louis: Davante Parker, WR, Louisville

11. Minnesota: Trae Waynes, CB, Michigan St.

12. Cleveland: Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia

13. New Orleans: Bud Dupree, DE, Kentucky

14. Miami: Landon Collins, S, Alabama

15. San Francisco: Arik Armstead, DE, Oregon

16. Houston: Brashard Perriman, UCF

17. San Diego: D.J. Humprhies, OT, Florida

18. Kansas City, Cameron Erving, C, Florida St.

19. Cleveland: Randy Gregory, DE, Nebraska

20. Philadelphia, Damarious Randall, S, Arizona St.

21. Cincinnati: Dorial Green-Beckham, WR, Oklahoma

22. Pittsburgh: Byron Jones, CB, Connecticut

23. Detroit: Andrus Peat, OT, Stanford

24. Arizona: Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas

25. Carolina: Ereck Flowers, OT, Miami

26. Baltimore: Melvin Gordon, RB, Wisconsin

27. Dallas: Kevin Johnson, CB, Washington

28. Denver: Devin Funchess, WR, Michigan

29. Indianapolis: Shane Ray, DE, Missouri 

30. Green Bay: Eric Rowe, CB, Utah

31. New Orleans: Jaelen Strong, WR, Arizona St.

32. New England: Eddie Goldman, DT, Flordia St.

Fantasy Football 2014: Running Backs

Never too early to start thinking about fantasy football football. The world cup is over, Kevin Love is unlikely to be traded for at least 20 days, and there is like 60 games left for most baseball teams. The lure of glory looms and the thirst for victory is insatiable. Well it is nearly August and plenty time enough to start joining leagues; surely you will not regret having an absurd amount of fantasy teams come November and you decide you want to have a life.

We start with running backs, who at one time ruled as kings over all other positions, dictating the fate of most  fantasy teams--especially those in flex leagues. Now the running back is on the steady decline; last year they were effectively eclipsed in importance by wide receivers. Will the running back rebound, or sink deeper into its ultimate demise, or pudder along nearly matching last year's low standard for achievement? Likely the latter, but with running backs there is always hope of true fantasy glory: Jamal Charles, Eddie Lacy, Adrian Peterson, Doug Martin, Alfred Morris, and so and so on. There all always studs at running back, but finding one outside of the top five picks is always difficult, and moreover, picking one in the first round is no guarantee of success.

STRATEGY:
This year I think the best strategy is not necessarily to reach in rounds one and two (where there is the really only opportunity to land top end play makers at other positions), but look for rounds 3-6 to grab at least a couple, and hopefully have three solid RB's on your team. I think after my 16th rated running back (Zac Stacey) the crowd gets pretty dicey and relies heavily on optimism. I have Toby Gerhart ranked 17th, and while there is huge potential there, one cannot deny the inherent risk of putting faith in a completely unproven commodity. I think late in the draft there is plenty of potential for sleepers and I will get to that ahead.

THE STUDS (1. Adrian Peterson, 1. Jamal Charles, 1. Lesean McCoy, 4. Eddie Lacy, 5. Matt Forte, 6. Leveon Bell):
The first three need nothing said on their behalf, beside the fact that any one them would make a fine first overall pick and all must be picked in the top three overall. Eddie Lacy is pretty solid in the four spot, but I would still take Calvin Johnson over him. Matt Forte is not far behind lacy at all and I would not question anyone for taking him at number 5. Forte has been solid for years, is still young, and finally has a great offense to play in.  Look for his production to be similar to last years, but you should not expect the moon. Leveon Bell might be the biggest surprise here, but he fills all the requisites to be considered among the elite: past production, plays in potent offense, limited competition for carries, two way ability, evident talent, ascending. Pittsburgh may not have the best offense in the league, but they present a great opportunity for a young workhorse like bell, who gets plenty of points receiving the ball (and Pittsburgh has no options at WR outside of Antonio Brown). Injury is a minor, yet likely unnecessary concern.

OPPORTUNITY AND RISK: (7. Montee Ball, 11. Giovanni Bernard, 15. Andre Ellington, 17. Toby Gerhart, 20. Ben Tate, 22. Bishop Sankey)
The first two are pretty safe and also have the most upside in the group, but still they lack the experience of consistently carrying the load, so there is risk in taking them over top proven receivers, quarterbacks and Jimmy Graham. Andre Ellington elicits obvious parallels to a pair of colossal busts from last year, Lamar Miller and David Wilson. All three are small fast and showed huge potential as rookies before presuming number one duties in year two. We all know the story, Wilson was a huge bust before becoming injured after showing a glimmer of hope, while Miller muddled in mediocrity all season struggling to fend off Daniel Thomas for carries. But in fantasy one should not dwell on the past, but look to the future. That is why I Think Ellington is in line for a big season, even if he is small and grappled with seceding carries to inferior talent last season--but you should probably take him as your number two. Gerhart has the best opportunity to be the lead back of the bottom three here, but will Jacksonville's offense drag him down?

ONETIME FANTASY STUDS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE PAST THEIR PRIME:
(8. Demarco Murray, 9. Arian Foster, 10. Alfred Morris, C.J. Spiller, 13. Marshawn Lynch, 14. Doug Martin 16. Zac Stacey, 19. Trent Richardson, 21. Rashad Jennings, 24. Ryan Matthews, 27. Steven Ridley)
A vast group thats name says a lot about them. Everyone on this list has been a legit reliable stud for at least a short period of time (Rashad Jennings barely), yet arguably everyone on this list has seen their best days already. Murray, Foster, Spiller, Martin, and Mathews are injury risks. Morris, Stacey and Richardson perhaps set too high of standards during standout rookie years. Ridley is an inconsistent fumbler in the midst of four-way time share with an unpredictable coach and Marshawn Lynch may have been exhausted in the last three years. Yet everyone on this list has the potential to exceed expectations and have career years (even Foster and Lynch, they are not that old). Which leads to....

ONETIME FANTASY STUDS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY PAST THEIR PRIME:
(18. Chris Johnson, 26. Frank Gore, 28. Ray Rice, 29. Steven Jackson, 32. Knowshon Moreno, 36. Fred Jackson, 39. Maurice Jones Drew, 43. Deangelo Williams 45. Darren Mcfadden)
Most aren't worth mentioning. Chris Johnson still has plenty of potential and has been quietly steady the last two years, but he is not rushing for 2000 yards. Rice is an interesting one, because I think he could actually bounce back and the opportunity is still there. Frank Gore may start another season and finish it solidly, but he will not lead you to glory in the playoffs, so consider him accordingly.

SLEEPERS:
(30. Carlos Hyde, 31. Bernard Pierce, 34. Terrance West, 35. Devontee Freeman, 37. Pierre Thomas, 38. Bryce Brown).
Actually there are not a lot of great sleepers. I like Hyde the best, because all that is standing between him and fantasy stud-dom is an aging declining Frank Gore. Devontee Freeman is just a really flashy player that I don't think necessarily needs a ton of touches to have a decent impact. Brown could come out pretty nice if Spiller and Jackson (both injury proned) get banged up.

HANDCUFFS:
(39. Jeremy Hill, 40. Nile Davis, 42. James Starks,  46. Christine Michael, 47. Joseph Randle, 48. Roy Helu, 49. Tre Mason

THE OTHER GUYS:

(23. Shane Vereen, 25. Reggie Bush, 33. Lamar Miller, 44. Darren Sproles, 50. Danny Woodhead)
Oddly enough a lot of pass catchers here. Their ranking reflects how much I like them.

Mock Draft 2014

Ok so here is my annual mock. It is definitely a tough year to judge with uncertainty starting at the top pick in the draft. But alas we must try, so here it is:

1. Houston: Jadeaveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina
2. St. Louis: Greg Robinson, OT, Auburn
3. Jacksonville: Khalil Mack, LB, Buffalo
4. Cleveland: Mike Evans, WR, Texas A & M
5. Oakland: Sammy Watkins, WR, Clemson
6. Atlanta: Jake Matthews, OT, Texas A & M
7. Tampa Bay: Johnny Manziel, QB, Texas A & M
8. Minnesota**TRADES** Dallas: Aaron Donald, DT, Pitt
9. Buffalo: Taylor Lewan, OT, Michigan
10. Detroit: Ha Ha Clinton Dix, S, Alabama
11. Tennessee: Dee Ford, DE, Auburn
12. New York Giants: Eric Ebron, TE, North Carolina
13. St Louis: Calvin Prior, S, Louisville
14. Chicago: Louis Nix III, DT, Notre Dame
15. Pittsburgh: Justin Gilbert, CB, Oklahoma St.
16. Minnesota: Blake Bortles, QB, UCF
17. Baltimore: Anthony Barr, LB, UCLA
18. NY Jets: Odell Beckham JR, WR, LSU
19. Miami: Zach Martin, OT, Notre Dame
20. Arizona: Ryan Shazier, LB, Ohio St.
21. Green Bay: Marquise Lee, WR, USC
22. Philadelphia: Darqueze Denard, CB, Michigan St.
23. Kansas City: Brandin Cooks, WR, Oregon St.
24. Cincinnati: Teddy Bridgewater, QB, Louisville
25. San Diego: Kony Ealy, DE, Missouri
26. Cleveland: Derek Carr, QB, Fresno St.
27. New Orleans: Cody Latimer, WR, Indiana
28. Carolina: Jason Verret, CB, TCU
29. New England: Rashed Hage'man, DT, Minnesota
30. San Francisco: Kelvin Benjamin, WR, FSU
31. Denver: Xavier Sua'filo, G, UCLA
32. Seattle: Timmy Jernigan, DT, FSU

Thoughts and Observations:
I love Mike Evans. To me his is the third best player in the draft behind Clowney and Robinson. He has everything you want in a WR physically, but also has unparalleled ball skills. He certainly helped Manziels stock.
Not to bag on Sammy Watkins (who I think is a terrific WR prospect) but I prefer Marquise Lee as my number two WR. Yes he had a down year last year, and that is concerning, but when you watch him play he is just so, so smooth. He reminds me of Greg Jenning, but faster and better in the air. I can only hope the Packers can scoop him up.
I like Dee Ford A LOT. He is just a force rushing the passer, and I think he will provide an immediate impact.
Ha Ha Clinton Dix will be the top secondary player in the draft. His film is just really solid, he always looks good. I just like how he plays. Justin Gilbert should be getting more press than he does though, he is a really solid CB prospect.
Timmy Jernigan could be a steal if he falls because of a failed drug test. He is really a force inside. I like Louis Nix plenty as well.
Teddy Bridgewater is legit. All this pro day stuff is just ridiculous. Why is there so much more stake in his pro day, which is nothing like the NFL, as opposed to his two bowl games where he was remarkable. Bridgewater has all the skills and tape to back it up. Honestly his drop is disconcerting for how people scout QBs.
Maziel will be a bust. Obviously there are injury concerns, but that's not it for me. I never see him making progressions like a QB should. He has enough arm and is accurate enough, but he doesn't see things like a QB should. Most of his highlights should be considered low-lights, where he just scrambles around and chucks it up to Mike Evans. Great if he plays on Detroit, but that's not happening.
I prefer Shazier over Mosely. He plays faster, and injury is less of a concern. I can see Mosely falling pretty far.
Not a big Kelvin Benjamin fan. I liked Rashad Green MUCH more on FSU. Benjamin just out-talled a lot of short college CBs, he will not fare as well in the NFL.
Jimmie Ward should be a first round pick. He plays bigger than he is and is super impressive on tape. He can do everything you want in a safety.

Behold Greatness

Total QBR: a Totally Flawed Statistic

Advanced metrics in sports have recently become popular, especially in baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball--and this makes sense, these sports are played out over 162 games 82 games respectively, and many key statistics are based on finite percentages accumulated over many many games. That is why stats like WARP, WHIP, and PER, have been so successful, and, perhaps, the reason ESPN felt compelled to create this new absurd statistic, Total QBR.  But football is much different than these sports, there are but a mere 16 games in a season, it is played mostly outdoors and often in varying weather conditions (true baseball is played outdoors too, but in the summer when weather is not as significant a factor), and the stats accumulated in these games are much less consistent than in sports with structures in place that create consistency--such as the shot clock in basketball, and the number of outs in a game in baseball. Total QBR was invented by ESPN a couple of years as a so called 'improvement' to the somewhat archaic Quarterback Rating system that had long been in place. While I think that the initial quarterback rating has it's inherent flaws (mostly it overrates TD passes), it is a simple and somewhat effective tool for measuring passing numbers for a quarterback. Total QBR on the other hand takes the simplicity way out of the equation in an attempt to incorporate all of the factors that lead to a quarterbacks success, and essentially just goes way over the top. In attempting to include all of these statistics, Total QBR, actually accounts for far less consistency than if it were to focus on a smaller number of more important stats (like the original quarterback rating).  By trying to measure every part of the game, it really jumbles everything up.  .
So, what are some of the other reasons Total QBR is so dumb? For starters ESPN has yet to release the actual formula for total QBR, why is this? They have also altered the formula the last two seasons--implying they themselves can sense the flaws the system, but don't know quite how to fully correct them (I think they are in over their heads). By incorporating rushing statistics into to Total QBR, ESPN, unnecessarily over-complicates things; instead of being able to look at ones quarterback rating and also look at ones rushing statistics as separate entities that both lead to a quarterback's effectiveness, we must mush them together in a sort of unappealing casserole of a statistic. Furthermore there is no advanced statistic to measure one's rushing effectiveness for other postilions, so why does in only matter for quarterbacks? This is the reason that Total QBR was in love with 'quarterback' Tim Tebow, even though anyone who has seen him throw one of his horribly inaccurate passes would rightly know otherwise. One of my biggest qualms with Total QBR, is the the sort of 'clutch' elements that it way over-emphasizes. For some reason a quarterback who plays great in the first half and essentially has propelled their team to victory, is far less impressive that a quarterback that has not played well enough to put their team ahead but is able to ultimately win a close game by coming back in the fourth quarter. This is because of how the sports media has sensationalized the comeback like the the news media sensationalized serial killers and horrendous acts of violence. With Total QBR, ESPN gives the fan what they think they want, and not what actually makes sense.
I think that one of the ultimate conclusions when it comes to Total QBR is that it was invented for the ever-growing casual sports fan. With social media and twitter's increasing popularity, so too has sports grown in popularity, but not for those that check the box scores and read the long form articles, but rather the fans who need instant gratification. I think part of Total QBR's appeal is to the lazy fan, who just watches Sportscenter and does not take the time come through an array of statistics and create judgments for themselves, instead they rely on a simple statistic that may or may not include beard length among the various unknown factors in its formula. It seems like Total QBR is here to stay, and is becoming more and more commonplace among commentators and writers alike, which is a shame. I think ESPN's shadow is far to great to completely escape it. I just hope that people can learn to think twice when they look at Total QBR, and do the research themselves when a Tim Tebow scores better than an Aaron Rodgers.

Official Super Bowl Picks

Ok, Ok, here be my Superbowl picks:


Green Bay over Cincinnati

Fantasy Tips 2013

Ah yes, like opening a can of Zima on a hot day, fantasy football has instantly begun to refresh our dulled intellects. As summer carries on and sports seem to fade  into the nothingness of baseball everyday, we sometimes forget the greatness of football in the fall, and fantasy football which begins now. But hark, it is time, so alas I must reveal my sleepers, busts, players I like, dislike ect, and so on.  So here it is:

Players I like:

Jamaal Charles, RB: 1500 yards to go with 5.3 YPC last year on a recovered ACL, I think J-Mail might have his best season to date right in front of him.

C.J. Spiller, RB: Call me a YPC sucker, but I love the 6 yards a rush from Spiller last year, and he will only be more featured this year. The one legitimate concern is how bad the team is, but they were bad last year too.

Chris Johnson, RB: The fact that he actually came on pretty strong at the end of last year, coupled with the pick up of two stud guards should implicate a big time fantasy season for CJ2K.

Julio Jones, WR: I like Jones as much as any WR this side of Calvin Johnson. He should only improve from his all ready impressive second year.

Chris Ivory, RB: I think this is a very underrated running back, coming into a decent-to-good running situation, which should ultimately make Ivory a dependable number 2 back with upside. Downside of course is the Jets are so bad that Ivory inevitably struggles as well.

David Wilson, RB: Even if Andre Brown has a huge year for his ceiling (say 800 yards rushing and 10 TDs) that still leaves plenty of fantasy production to go around in this sure to be high powered offense.

Randall Cobb and Jordy Nelson, WRs: Cobb and Nelson are 1 and 2 in the most potent passing attack in football, that's enticing enough, throw in the fact they are both young and improving receivers with proven track records and you should have some solid fantasy studs (I prefer Cobb among the two)

Cecil Shorts, WR: This guy is the real deal, and only a third year pro. I see big time potential despite an undesirable QB situation.

Giovanni Bernard, RB: I see big potential here, with an injury or production setback for BJGE. But even without such I see Bernard getting solid flex production.

Shane Vereen, RB: Could easily outproduce Ridley, will be very involved in passing game. 

Players Who I like Way More Than Their ADP

Lamar Miller, RB: I think Miller is a solid number 2 with the upside of a number 1. He has talent and opportunity, which remind me of say a Doug Martin last year, or Jamaal Charles a few years ago. 

 

RG3, QB: I cannot believe how low he is being drafted on averages; it's downright nuts. I think he is the number 4 QB behind Rodgers, Brees and Newton, and ahead of Manning and Brady. He will come back just like AP last year, mark it down. Just a tip though, I would draft a backup because of possible injury.

T.Y. Hilton, WR: This guy just has potential out the wazoo. I see him as a Santana Moss/Desean Jackson type ready to hit his prime and in a good situation. Do not be hesitant to snag T.Y.

Jerimichael Finley, TE: With TE's as thin as they are, Finley has as much potential as anyone to finally capitalize on his great talent (he is still only 25)

Players I Dislike (Fantasy Wise)

Greg Jennings, WR: I cannot see a great year coming his way with ponder slinging ducks

Andrew Luck, QB: I just think he's being over drafted a bit.

Eric Decker, WR: Clearly going to concede catches to Welker; Demaryius Thomas will not.

Frank Gore, RB: A decline is seemingly inevitable.

Jason Witten/Vernon Davis, TEs: Don't overdraft these tight ends just because it is a weak position, you will only find disappointment.

Reggie Wayne, WR: Too old, just too old. Why invest in something with such little potential for upside?

Eddie Lacy, RB: Would be very surprised if he became a fantasy option this year. But future potential is there.

Deep Sleepers 

Jonathan Franklin, RB: Could be the leading back coming out of Green Bay, he has the talent.

Daryl Richardson, RB: Lost in the shuffle last year, was how good Richardson actually played, with opportunity, he could really surprise some people.

Julian Edelman, WR: Hoping to fill Welkers role in New England, or some semblance of it. Brady has to throw to somebody and he and Edelman actually have a pretty good repoir.

Chris Givens, WR: This guy is T.Y. Hilton-lite, but he still has huge upside in 2013 and the future.

Danario Alexander, WR: Flashed big play ability last year for a consistent stretch. Only concern is injury.

Rob Housler/Jordan Cameron, TEs: The two premier sleeper TE's. Both have big talent, with potential huge opportunity in their coaching changes.

Ed Dickson, TE: Now becomes sleeper with Pitta out for season.

Bernard Pierce, RB: Very good player stuck in a less than ideal situation.

Kendall Hunter, RB: Could finally take the reigns in San Fran this year. 

NFL Mock Draft 4/25/2013

All right so here it is, my final mock draft of 2013. The NFL draft is probably my favorite experience in all of sports; it truly is where superbowls are won and bottom dwelling teams created.  Who can forget Aaron Rodgers waiting till the 24th pick to be taken by the Favre-led Packers, or Al Davis selecting Darius Hayward-Bey 7th overall, or Matt Millen selecting a wide receiver in the first round for three consecutive years. It is the moments like these that we both cringe at yet love to watch. Of course the ridiculous hype that now surrounds draft has grown increasingly irritable over the years, but can you really blame the media for catching onto this unusual sports gem. There is no game, live action, competition, big hits, tailgating, cheerleaders, or refs to blame, just pure statistics and football nerdery, and boy do I love it. Anyways onto the mock, no doubt this will prove far from accurate:

1. Kansas City: Eric Fisher, OT, Central Michigan

2. Jacksonville: Dion Jordan, DE, Oregon

3. Oakland: Sharif Floyd, DT, Florida

4. Philadelphia: Lane Johnson, OT, Oklahoma

5. Detroit: Luke Joeckel, OT, Texas A & M

6. Cleveland: Dee Milliner, CB, Alabama

7. Arizona: Chance Warmack, G, Alabama

8. Buffalo: Ryan Nassib, QB, Syracuse

9. NY Jets: Tavon Austin, West Virginia 

10. Tennessee: Ziggy Ansah, DE, BYU

11. San Diego: D.J. Fluker, OT, Alabama

12. Miami: Xavier Rhodes, CB, Florida St.

13. NY Jets: Star Lotuleilei, DT, Utah

14. Carolina: Sheldon Richardson, DT, Missouri

15. New Orleans: Barkevious Mingo, OLB, LSU

16. St Louis: Alec Ogletree, LB, Georgia 

17. Pittsburgh: Jarvis Jones, OLB, Georgia 

18. Dallas: Sylvester Williams, DT, North Carolina 

19. New York Giants: Tyler Eiffert, TE, Notre Dame

20. Chicago: Justin Cooper, G, North Carolina 

21. Cincinnati: Kenny Vaccaro, S, Texas

22. St. Louis: Cordarelle Patterson, WR, Tennessee

23. Minnesota: Desmond Trufant, CB, Washington

24. Indianapolis: D.J. Haden, CB, Houston

25. Minnesota: Manti Te'o, LB, Notre Dame

26. Green Bay: Datone Jones, DE, UCLA

27. Houston: Deandre Hopkins, WR, Clemson

28. Denver: Bjoern Werner, DE, Florida St.

29. Atlanta: Justin Pugh, G, Syracuse

30. New England **TRADE** Philadelphia: Geno Smith, QB, West Virginia 

31. San Francisco: John Cyprien, S, Florida International 

32. Baltimore: Robert Woods, WR, USC  

Picks, Picks and more Picks

Well just another year, just another bracket eh? Simple enough to me. Anyways I'm gonna try to keep this short cause I got a lot of picks to get to, just so you all can see that I'm really a pretty poor prognosticator, however I once did have the ability to pick the future in sports (Rams over Titans in like 2000, before the season started no joke), but this ability decimated once I had a Bar Mitzvah for reasons not entirely know anyways onto it (and no, I do not consider the "first four" an actual round).

round of 32:

Ohio St.

George Mason

Clemson

Kentucky

Xavier

Syracuse

Washington

Long Island (in the biggest upset of the tourney)

Duke

Tennessee

Arizona

Texas

Missouri

Uconn

Penn St.

San Diego St.

Kansas

UNLV

Richmond

Morehead St. (another significant upset)

VCU

Purdue

Texas A & M

Notre Dame

Pitt

Old Dominion (this my squadd)

Utah St.

Wisconsin

Gonzaga

BYU

UCLA

Florida

Round of 16:

Ohio St. (but be weary)

Kentucky

Xavier

Washington

Duke

Texas

Uconn

San Diego St.

Kansas

Richmond

Purdue

Notre Dame

Old Dominion (that's right)

Wisconsin

BYU

UCLA

Elite 8:

Ohio St.

Xavier

Texas

San Diego St.

Kansas

Notre Dame

Old Dominion

BYU

Final Four:

Kansas, BYU, San Diego St, Ohio St.

Championship:

Kansas over Ohio St.

Recap: I went way more chalk than usual this year, but hopefully that will me there actually are a lot of upsets (for irony sake). I don't really care how my bracket does I just care about the madness.

It's all done but the crying

Well since digital processes has come to a dramatic end (not really, it was actually pretty anticlimactic) I now must once again find meaning in myself, life, and food portraits. Overall I can't say I'm disappointed that I will no longer have to be frequently chewing and gluing tiny pieces of food to pizza box, but it certainly did happen. The biggest problem I faced throughout the whole project was probably a dearth of glue sticks, which I was ultimately only partially able to overcome. I will however dearly miss the 'quest for the apple,' or playing snake regularly in hopes achieving unparalleled success, but this will actually likely continue. The most disappointing aspect of the whole project was probably the way I died in the one epic snake game that I video taped. i really thought I was gonna break through and just fill up the whole screen, and then bam I'm dead, unbelievable. I actually have scored better games then the one shown in the movie, but I don't know if I have ever had a better set up and feel that deep in, not to mention it was probably the largest snake I have ever achieved. Now I know this all sounds like it's all about masculinity (what with Magic Johnson, over-sized snakes, naked men next to beer can walls, and werewolf Bar Mitzvahs) and maybe it is (I mean I do love masculinity, and know no one more masculine than I), but I think the larger reference transcends gender. It does not really matter who you are, we all want the apple (whatever it may be) and it's almost always impossible to capture.

Rich Dadd, Kirsten Boehm, and Me: Wer'e all a Little Crazy

So I had a pretty event filled week, this past week. I learned about the infamous Richard Dadd, and caught a something of a glimpse into the future in hearing Kirsten Boehm speak in multiple formats. Specifically neither of these to artist tied directly to the work I am currently creating, however generally I think the both apply rather appropriately. I too, will soon exit college with little resembling a formulated plan. I'm not really sure I now have any clear answers, but it was nice to get a relative perspective. In terms of me and Rich Dadd, I think that we both liked to think outside the box a little bit--now this is not to say that I think I am possessed with the spirit of Osiris. While Rich Dadd painted fanciful fairies, I am creating metaphorical fairies?? But really it seems quite easy to be considered unusual in this two-partied world we live in.

Anyways, Malcolm Chex is officially underway; I now possess six different types of Chex as well as fifty new HOT glue sticks. The size will be about 150 % larger than the Mahatma Candy. Seeing as I will continue to be quite busy I will now depart.

Yea, Yea Whatever

Ok so this is a little late, I forgot to blog before the Student Employment in the Arts conference, because I was just so damned jazzed for it. I also felt a little stressed out after driving back home in swarming blizzard with a bunch of window wipers that just sucked. Actually I think this makes a nice transition into what I want to talk about with my art. I think its possible that by forcing myself to play snake so frequently I have begun to develop super human qualities of hand eye coordination, thus allowing me to steer clear of snowy ditches and exit ramps. Ok, so this is mostly false, but I do feel as though I have grown (backwards?) as a person because of snake--take it how you will. Anyways, Muhatma Candy is near completion, it has taken me a lot of time, I will also start to record some snake games today for the final video. And of course everything is in line for a very large pizza to be ordered tonight, and thus the backdrop of Malcom Chex will be created. I think my product ideas may have taken a bit of a sharp turn, but I can't really divulge without giving to much away. So alas I end this post--as hope to end this class--in somewhat ambiguous fashion, have a great Sunday everybody.

The Internet.... is great!!

This week I read a few stories about... the internet? Well, maybe, probably, I mean really it's tough to say. One story by Jorge Borges (which by the way is quite a name, but then consider the full name, Jorge Francisco Isidoro Luis Borges Acevedo) was about a forking garden of sorts and the other by Bill Viola was about a porcupine and a car. When you read The Garden of Forking Paths it seems very obvious that Borges is indeed alluding to the internet, but alas he wrote it before 1950, how can this be? Alas perhaps the thing we know as the 'internet' is actually a metaphor for something else that has all ready existed, but what then? Perhaps this garden refers to 'knowledge', or the infinite history that both precedes and proceeds us. Or maybe Borges is simply referring to the perplexing infinite nature of our universe? Or--and this is my favorite theory--Borges was the smartest man ever and invented time travel, traveled forward in time, observed the internet first hand, came back to 1944 and explained it in the most poetic yet understandable way possible. I mean seriously he's talking about the internet, crazy. Like Borges, I too have experienced the internet, and continue to experience it on a very regular (regimented?) basis. My current project of combining both my food portraits, obsession of snake, and likeness to Magic Johnson, is heavily reliant on the internet. But how you ask? Well for starters I often use the internet before making my Magic Johnson PowerPoint presentations. I also use the internet to get my images for my food portraits, but most importantly I use the internet as a platform for snake playing. Now you say "oh, well you could just play snake on your computer or cell phone." But I respond as such: first of all cell phone snake sucks, lets not even go there, second of all I need to play snake online so I can compete against everyone else in the world playing snake thus proving my worthiness as both snake player and college student. So the internet is great! For now, but it may only be a matter of time before the freedom we now enjoy becomes a.) extremely regulated, or b.) the power that will eventually enslave all humans. Certainly we seem to be playing Russian roulette here with our abuse of technology, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't living it up. Considering the internet is as fast, virtually cost efficient, and vastly encompassing as it is, it almost seems to good to be true. So I say get it while it's hot, before something implodes.

Ray J. and Mary J: My way or the MJ

Compared to the recent artist I've covered here, Ray Johnson's work seemed to have a particularly appealing visual aspect to it. I think his work was very much conceptual, but it was also meticulous and exciting in the visual sense--and this is a bit of relief. I think my final project idea is also somewhat similar to Johnson, in that I am in part the piece (more specifically my snake playing, I guess it's tough measure how much consciousness I actually retain during these sessions though--this is enough on this for now), I do not plan on committing suicide, however, but the ending might ultimately be similarly hopeless. (By the way I have officially began construction on Mahatma Candy, hopefully it will soon be finished).

In terms of Mary Jane Jacobs, I found her readings, lecture, Q and A, to be somewhat engaging, but at times a little to fast and reference-filled to follow. In general I really don't see my art in the way I think she was trying to accomplish it in. I think that other people could probably do a better job helping with the community than my artwork could. I think it would really be compromising some part of myself, though I'm not entirely sure what. The idea of working with art to help the community, in one way is like ethanol; because we need of one thing (oil/community projects) more than the other (corn/art), and we have a surplus of the other thing (corn/art), does not necessarily mean converting corn/art into fuel/community projects is truly efficient. I also feel that these projects do not necessarily break down the barriers of the 'white cube', but rather disguise them and make them more propagandistic; most of these projects are selected by those in the curatorial fields (like Mary Jane Jacobs) are often similar to everything else shown in museums, only now they are forced upon the public as the standard of 'decent' and/or successful art. In all honesty I think what Mary Jane Jacobs does seems very successful and well though out, I don't think I would ever be able to do it (I don't think I can plan that well), and I don't know if it is really breaking down that many barriers.

Kaprow/Fluxus and 60's no mistake: Happen this

In reading about Kaprow and Fluxus recently I came upon two fairly simple conclusions. The first and more obvious conclusion, is that these art movements in the late 50's and early 60's very much correspond with the increasingly rabid drug use during these time periods, particularly LSD and other hallucinogens similar to it. Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually know if these artist took drugs as much as practically everyone else in America did, I am just taking a wild guess that, in my opinion, ties up some otherwise loose ends. When people take drugs like acid, and even to a lesser extent marijuana, the world becomes a more complex place. Things seemingly meaningless become filled with content and perplexing purpose. Anything becomes a possibility, thus impulsive actions become increasingly likely. The world seems unfathomably connected, and finally, as Baba Ram Dass can tell you, the moment becomes extremely important (Be Here Now anyone). To me, these ideas seem remarkably similar to those of Fluxus and the Happenings movements that focus on the moment, performance art, finding/creating beauty (or art or whatever) in things that usually aren't considered such, and pushing the edge of possibility/creativity. It's no coincidence that Van Gogh was painting such eerie images while guzzling absinthe at the local cafe, and who knows what he (and other artists) would came up with if he was taking acid like gumdrops, but I would wager that it would be pretty 'out-there.' It seems like drugs are always the white elephant in the room whenever these movements are discussed in classes; everyone knows it's there but no one wants to acknowledge it.

The second thing that stood out to me about Fluxus and Happenings, was that it seemed like what they were trying to accomplish was essentially what sports are. Kaprow described happenings as "A game, an adventure, a number of activities engaged in by participants for the sake of playing;" that right there sounds like halftime speech from an extremely bland football coach. Furthermore, through there books, Fluxus gives directions for, essentially, 'happenings,' or loose sets of guidelines that involve participants in an act of 'art.' Once again most sports seem to be extremely complex (and admittedly more regimented) versions of these directions. Sports are a 'happening,' there is no final product (aside from a score or pictures and videos, but is that any different from tittles, and photos of in art?) and no one can accurately predict the results (though we may try). Most sports are a result of interaction between a set of players (performers) and fans (viewers); this interaction is intensified most in Basketball, where celebrities line the court literally inches away from the players in the game. Fan interaction in sports can be directly tied to the event they're attending in away that spectators in galleries could not accomplish (before these movements of course). Often times fans are credited with 'helping out the home team' in close games by providing an advantage with their provocative cheers and extremely loud noise (this can become in itself an art, as some student sections provide a cheat sheet on every seat of sore subjects to berate opposing players with). Although technically illegal and frowned upon by mainstream media, fans often run onto the field (some naked) at random times causing momentary confusion and excitement by both crowd and players. In multiple occasions fans and players have engaged in fist fights on and off the court. Essentially sports are happenings that people take way more seriously, which is a significant difference, admittedly. But sports, like happenings, are a spectrum for infinite possibilities and really only false or perceived conclusions. Sports seemingly have a more intended and direct goal, but this goal, is also perceived, and not necessarily accurate, for the real goal of sports may simply be to 'play for the love of the game' or the most used sports cliche ever. a So maybe if Kaprow ever wanted to start taking his happenings seriously he should have picked up a basketball, but maybe that was the point, who knows? Ok I know that was pretty long, but I really had to get some stuff off my chest.

Beuys and Me: The Cat's Cradle

Ok, so it's saturday I know, procrastinating just doesn't work out as well on Friday nights. Anyways I got some thoughts to spit on Beuys, so here it goes. Generally I feel extremely different than Beuys when create my artwork. When I draw or paint, I focus almost exclusively on the aesthetics of the piece as opposed to the reaction it my draw from the viewer. I like for my art to be able to be 'understood' without a context, but this is not to say I discredit conceptual art; moreover I think conceptual art fills a certain void that I usually don't consider. Beuys was very much an activist and also a product of a dark personal history. I think this, in some ways, led to an interest in promoting concepts, awareness and reactions in his work. I'm not really looking to spread ideas or awareness right now, so I'm more focused on the visual quality of my work (just a quick update on my project, I have continued to log my snake and plan to start my portraits today). Honestly I can't say that I was particularly drawn to much of Beuys work, but I really liked how exploited himself and the art world to raise money for planting trees. I see a lot of conceptual work and come away thinking it's a bunch of lazy crap, but with Joseph Beuys I really get a sense sincerity that is a little refreshing.

Strozek, Fo Stro: Shit happens

Man these Fridays really sneak up on you, huh? Anyways I finally saw Strozek in its entirety Wednesday, and I guess I came away with a new outlook on the film. At first Strozek seemed more of a portrait of intersecting lives, yet as it progressed I felt the film took on a more explicit direction. The ending in particular emphasizes the cyclical nature of life as we know it. Instead of merely following Bruno through some sort of arbitrary adventure, we see him take a path that leads directly (almost meticulously) back to his starting point (mentally unstable, and imprisoned or dead). Eva too seems to come full circle as she resorts back to prostitution. One might interpret these situations as people unable to escape their own fate or destiny, but I see it more as them being unable to escape themselves--especially when confronted with the difficulties of society. Here we see another endless cycle forming; as society slowly rejects Eva and Bruno's dream of american success, so to do Bruno and Eva stop believing in their own possibilities off success and their lives, accordingly, begin to spin out of control. But what comes first in this chicken-egg-like scenario? In the final scene of the film, Herzog, bombards the viewer with more cyclical imagery (dancing chicken, chairlift, truck), yet now it is apparent that Bruno is fully aware of these metaphors, and once again we have to ask ourselves what is driving who? One may finish the film and come away with a pointless outlook on life, but I think that viewpoint is misguided. Instead the film compounds the difficulties of life with someone who is mentally unstable from years of abuse. For this particular case, the cycle is tragically impossible to prevent, yet we see that society alone is not responsible for this but also Bruno's own outlook on humanity (distorted from his abusive upbringing). From this we can gather that Bruno's life is one of unfortunate consequence, mostly out of his control. In Herzog's film, the word is a cruel and unforgiving place, but I think it shows that this is intensified the more one believes it to be true, and therefore it might be possible for us to break the cycle.

Ziegler on Herzog; a Shifting Kaleidescope

Oh man, I was just so psyched up for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, that I completely forgot to blog on Friday, but in honor of the big guy himself, I got to spit my thoughts out here about Werner Herzog. The reading "Herzog on Herzog," was really just an interview, that I found pretty entertaining. I like a lot of what Herzog had to say, but specifically I found his comments on anonymity particularly appealing. Herzog says, "To remain anonymous behind what you have created means that your work has an even stronger life of its own." I've all ways been a bit confused by the obsession with credits, and signatures on ones own work, and I never understood why I needed to do it. To me, it seems like you're debasing the work in some sort manner for the sole purpose of crediting yourself--why do we care about that so much? I guess credit is all that some people can hope for. But for others, myself included, what I hope for, is to produce something that stimulates me (and perhaps others ), once it is created I do not care that I made it, I care that it exists. Ideally everyone's art would be available to everyone else (technology is making this increasingly impossible) and one would not need to name-drop in order to like something. All a signature really does is put a very small (if not very large) filter on how someone might view the work. To me, the work itself is a signature, if it garners success and someone else is somehow able to take credit for it, I'll give them some credit (thats seems like it might be pretty tough to do). If I make something I know I made it, and generally when I do create something, whether video or drawing, I do not envision a little signature in the corner (it would make no sense to me) or a list of names and titles rolling at the of my film instead of some sort of climatic last moment (once again, no sense). Although credits and signatures might seem normal, or even fitting, they are not, and we have been conditioned to use them, and some how find meaning in them.

Warhol and Me; the Sacred Feather

Generally speaking, I would say that me and Warhol come at art in pretty different directions. I wouldn't really say that i'm too into the whole 'leftovers' idea. I think that 'recycling' (as Warhol puts it) is actually more like re-appropriation, and the whole recycling idea comes off as a little forced; I mean seriously nothing less is wasted in Andy Warhol's art than in anybody else's. But I guess that something of semantics. I do think Warhol's work relates to one of my project ideas, however, in that I may make food portraits of famous people. In many ways this project idea is deeply rooted in pop art, and may also in fact re-use famous imagery. So maybe I am actually into 'leftovers?' No, I still think its different (and I would also say that this project is not the norm for me).

Official Super Bowl picks

Well this isn't gonna be a long one, but here are my picks for the super bowl:

New York Giants over Baltimore Ravens

A few quick thoughts: I would love to pick Green Bay, but for some reason I just can't (perhaps because the pick is so popular). I think the Giants might be the most underrated team coming into this year, their defense should be beefed up, and Manning has a talented crop of receivers to compliment the electric Ahmad Bradshaw. Baltimore is solid on offense and defense, and I see the AFC as a bit of a crapshoot anyways