Post Draft Commanders Thoughts

Draft season is over. The Commanders came out of the weekend with five new players. All the dream classes you thought up are now and forever gone. The mid-round sleepers you picked out from online research are (most likely) on different teams. Maybe Washington can snag them in a year or two or three. Who knows what will happen.

But now that the dust has settled, it is time to take a look at what Washington did do. I'll compare my pre-draft thoughts to what Washington did.

1) Trade Down: Well, this didn't happen. I think everyone expected/wanted the Commanders to trade back to acquire more picks in this draft, and Adam Peters said prior to the draft that he was open to anything. But it takes two to tango, and apparently there were not two willing parties to make a deal happen. The curveball, however, is that it was Washington that didn't want to make a deal. After making the first two picks, Peters told the media he didn't want to trade and risk missing out on Josh Conerly and Trey Amos. Peters made some good trades on draft day last year, so it's a bit disappointing he didn't wheel and deal this year, but if we're gonna let Adam cook, then we need to trust him and the front office when they see talented players that they just have to take.

2) Don't trade down too far: No trades, so not much to discuss here. But I do want to point out that KC and Philly swapped picks, which was something I was pushing for Washington to do.

3) Skew towards defense: This also turned out differently than my pre-draft thoughts. But I'm not super worried about it. Basically,  they went RB in Round 7 instead of taking a flyer on a defensive player. 

4) Donovan Ezeiruaku: This was the guy I wanted with their first pick. Obviously, Peters and company graded Conerly higher. I'm not going to argue with the front office, but we are going to see how this choice turns out because Dallas picked Eziruaku in round 2. That's a great situation for him as he will likely get to see a lot of one on one matchups opposite Micah Parsons. Tunsil and Conerly vs. Parsons and Ezeirauku will be a fun matchup over the next two seasons (or more).

5) Speed, baby: One of the traits I wanted the Commanders to target was speed, and, boy, they sure did. Look at the forty times for their last four draft picks. Trey Amos: 4.43; Jaylin Lane: 4.34; Kain Medrano: 4.46; Jacory Croskey-Merrit: 4.45. That's good speed all around and among the tops at their position groups. And it's not like Conerly is slow, either. He ran a 5.05 with a 10-yard split of 1.70. So there are some good athletes in this group of players.

Overall, I like this draft class. Yes, there is still a pass rush concern, but I'm never going to argue against taking an OT who was an All-American. The Commanders feel like they got two guys with first-round grades in their first two picks, and based on where they were picking, that's pretty damn good.

And we have to consider that this draft class isn't just the five guys that were picked. The picks used to trade for Laramey Tunsil, Marshon Lattimore, and Deebo Samuel means you have to include them as part of the draft evaluation in some way. Look, the Commanders added a lot of talent, we just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Offseason Review/Pre-Draft Thoughts for the Commanders

Okay, just want to get some thoughts down about the 'Ders as we approach the NFL.

First, let's look back to some of the thoughts from pre-free agency. 

1) Trade for Miles Garrett: The first thing I had as something I wanted to see was for them to make a run at trading for Miles Garrett. This didn't happen. It takes two to tango (and in this case it would've taken three to come to an agreement), but looking back on the way everything went down, it doesn't look like Garrett was ever really available. Maybe the way things played out is for the best. What is for the best is that Adam Peters didn't panic and over pay to acquire Trey Hendrickson. Washington seems to be content to try to address the pass rush in the draft, picking from what is expected to be a deep class of edge rushers.

1b) Trades: So it kind of looks like my number offseason priority (adding star power through trades) was a bust. But to honor the soon-to-retire Lee Corso "Not so fast, my friend!" Peters did add star power to the roster via trade. It was just on offense rather than defense. He swung trades that brought in Deebo Samuels and Laremy Tunsil. We can quibble about losing the draft capital it took to bring these guys in, but I think what is important here is that the Commanders realized how close they are to making a Super Bowl during Jayden Daniels's rookie contract and took a swing to bring in high-talent players for Daniels to play with. 

2) Bring Back Key Vets: Peters looked at most of his roster and decided to run it back. Of the guys I wanted back prior to free agency, everyone is back except for Jeremy Chinn. And none of these guys was a wild overpay. Maybe someone is mad that Bobby Wagner is making $9 million, but it's a one-year deal for a future Hall of Famer who can still play and brings a lot to the locker room. You can make the same case for bringing back Zach Ertz (although he probably won't make the HoF). The only resigning that raised eyebrows was the one for blocking TE John Bates, but apparently other teams wanted him as well, and if Bates does the dirty work so that Ertz and Ben Sinnott can focus more on pass-catching, well, ok that's not so bad.

3) Draft Wisely: Skipping draft stuff for now. It'll get covered. Don't worry.

4) Avoid Handing Out Silly Big-Money Contracts: The only questionable contract Peters and company handed out was the three-year $45 million contract for Javon Kinlaw. But, all things considered, if that's the one big or questionable deal, it's not that bad. There is a potential to get out of the contract after next season per Spotrac, and the Kinlaw contract essentially replaces Jonathan Allen's previous contract. There are questions about how good Kinlaw is, but I'll give Dan Quinn the benefit of the doubt here and see if he and his coaching staff can unlock his potential.

The Commanders are currently 16th in cap space and are currently projected to have the 10th-most cap space next offseason. It's hard to look to far ahead because there is most likely an extension coming for Terry McLaurin. but the point is the team still has flexibility going forward, so I think the Commanders have done all right.

Cool. But C'mon, It's Draft Season! Give Some Draft Takes!

Ok, calm down. Draft takes, yes I've got a few.

1) Trade Down: After the trades to bring in Samuel and Tunsil, Washington enters the draft with five picks. The Commanders will probably be a playoff team even without adding a bunch of young talent, but Adam Peters should want to bring in rookie players to make this team younger. Washington was one of the oldest teams in the NFL last year. And, oh yeah, pretty much every draft pick made by Ron Rivera is no longer with the team. So, adding some young talent should be a priority. Now, of course, it'll take finding teams willing to trade with, but this is Adam Peters's moment to shine as a deal maker (why do so many people in this organization have last names that end in "s"?). He made a trade on during the 2024 Draft with the Philadelphia Eagles, so he's shown that he's willing to trade with anyone.

I've been playing with a mock draft tool, and it's been much more fun when I've traded down, picking up extra picks in the mid-to-late rounds. I'm hoping Peters finds making trades fun as well.

2) But don't trade down too far: Like I said, it's been fun playing with the mock draft simulator. I do think, however, Washington needs some high-potential talent added to this roster. So I'd suggest calling each of the teams drafting after Washington in round 1 to see if they want to move up a slot or two. Buffalo has a gazillion picks and probably wants to find a lot of rookie contracts now that Josh Allen has been extended for all the money in the world, but maybe you can pry a pick away from them to ensure they get the guy they want in round 1. Call Kansas City to see if they want to leapfrog Buffalo to get a certain player and give up one of their eight draft picks in the process. Same thought process with Philly at the end of Round 1. Cleveland and Tennessee pick at the top of round 2 and have a ton of picks you could ask for. Looking a little deeper, Jacksonville and Chicago have multiple second and third round picks. Use the phones, see what's available. There are chances to add picks while still being able to get the talent that is available at the end of round 1 or the start or round 2.  

3) Skew slightly towards defense: I think Jayden Daniels proved last season that he makes the guys around him better. So while it's really tempting to dream up scenarios where you give him some young talent and let him cook, I think it's probably a wiser move to draft more dudes on D than on offense. Quite simply, I think the offense will find a way. The defense is the side of the ball I have less faith in. We all saw the NFC Championship Game. The 'Ders simply couldn't get Philly off the field. So let's add more talent there. I'm not saying go overboard. Right now, Washington has five picks. If they made only those five picks, I would want three of them to be defenders and two picks to be on the offensive side of the ball. I'd like the same ratio if trades are made and more picks are acquired. 

4) Quick Hits/Random Thoughts: 

• The guy I want most Washington's first pick is Donovan Ezeiruaku. Let's get an edge rusher that can get to the QB. Maybe you don't think the ACC competition was good. He still recorded sacks in games against Missouri and Michigan State last year. And Ezeirauku's sack totals were pretty consistent throughout Boston College's season, so it's not like he just feasted on the bottom of the conference or non-P4 schools. He's been mock drafted in the late-first range, so who knows what will happen, but he's a guy who could address a big need.
• The trait I most want is speed (Al Davis was right). Maybe Maxwell Hairston or Matthew Golden drop down to Washington late in the first. I'd be tempted by their speed despite what I just said about Ezeirauku. A more realistic option would be adding the speed of Bhayshul Tuten in the middle rounds, but I'm sure a lot of people are looking at running back who ran a 4.32 at the combine.
• I'd love to see Jonas Sanker make the trip up Route 29 from Charlottesville to Washington, D.C. Sanker was one of the bright spots during a rough year for my Cavaliers, and I think he could be a solid addition to secondary.
• Of the need positions, cornerback is the one where I hope they don't try to force a pick. I like the group of guys they've assembled over the offseason. If the draft fell in a way that cornerback went unaddressed, I think that is survivable.
• There are a couple of legacy-players available: Benjamin Morrison and Luke Lachey. Benjamin's dad played for Washington from 1993-1996. Luke's dad is former Hog Jim Lachey. I don't know if they get a boost in their draft evals for that or not, but I find it interesting. Oh, Mason Taylor is also a legacy player, but Jason Taylor's season in Washington wasn't the best.

Preview Thoughts on the Commanders Offseason

We're finally good again! That's the overwhelming reaction after the 2024 NFL season for Commanders fans. Yes, there was hesitancy to believe things had changed when the season got off to a good start. And then there was RGIII-induced PTSD fear that an injury to Jayden Daniels would destroy the promise of this new era. But Daniels showed an ability to avoid big hits, and Washington made the NFC Championship game, leading fans to jump fully onto the bandwagon for the first time since 1991. And now, like everyone's favorite Kylo Ren gif, the fans are demanding: more.

So I want to look ahead to the offseason and look at four things I hope to see from Adam Peters and his front office to prep the 'Ders for the 2025 season when expectations are going to be sky high.

1) Trade for Myles Garrett

This move, in my opinion, is by far the biggest potential move for the Commanders. It could really open up a championship window for the next four years. It's also a big risk that could blow up in terrible ways. Garrett will be entering his age-30 season in 2025. He's going to command a contract extension that will pay him at least $30 million dollars based on reports. He's going to cost draft capital. There will be injury risk. But... he's Myles Garrett. He's the 2023 DPOY. He's made six All-Pro team (4 1st teams, 2 2nd teams). He is, quite simply, a game-changing player. 

And as we've seen with Jayden Daniels, adding a game changer can transform an entire unit. Imagine having Garrett play a role similar to what Micah Parsons did for Dan Quinn's defenses in Dallas. He just opens up the possibilities for what a defense can do because he's a player opposing coaches have to commit resources to stopping.

I just think that taking a swing for Garrett makes sense, especially when compared to the cost. Yes, he is looking to get paid, but the Commanders have $79 million in cap space. They can afford to add a big contact to the payroll for the right guy. The other thing to think about is the draft picks Washington would have to give up to acquire Garrett. It's going to take at least two first-round picks, maybe a player as well. But look at the list of guys selected 29th overall dating back to 1993. There are some recognizable names on the list, and the best player is probably Nick Mangold. Nick Mangold had a really good career, but he is not Myles Garrett. Yes, TJ Watt was once the 30th overall pick, but if you're telling me you can find the next TJ Watt, you should probably be doing something more lucrative than picking NFL players. The plan/hope is that Washington will be selecting late in the 2026 draft as well, so you would be trading two lottery tickets for a sure thing. 

Cleveland won't just give Garrett away. And there is going to be a bidding war for his services, but if you can grab him, I think it's a swing worth taking.

2) Bring Back Key Vets

Even though the 'Ders had a great season, this roster still needs a lot of work. The truth is that the Ron Rivera era left this team with some big talent deficiencies that were papered over last season with a bunch of veteran players on one-year deals. So Peters is going to have to resign some of those vets even though it would be nice to be able to get younger because there are too many holes that need to be filled. 

So guys like Bobby Wagner, Zack Ertz, Jeremy Chinn, at least two (and maybe three) of the veteran wide receivers, and Marcus Mariotta are going to have to be resigned to reasonable deals, if possible. I also wouldn't be mad if Noah Igbinoghene is brought back on a reasonable contract. I would imagine most of these guys would want to run it back. But it has to make sense. If the Raiders want to throw a ton of money at Wagner, then you let him go. I imagine some teams are looking at Chinn, even though safety is usually a position teams are loathe to commit big money to. At the same time, just because these vets and others will be in the building, it doesn't mean that Washington shouldn't be trying to get younger. Which leads me to...

3) Draft Wisely (Wow, Way to Take a Stand)

I know I'm kind of undermining this point by saying Washington should trade its first round picks this year and next to get Garrett, but building through the draft has to be the way this franchise moves forward. Peters and his staff got a lot of credit for bringing in talent in last year's draft, and they're going to have to do it again. Right now, Washington has seven picks in the draft, but two of those picks are seventh rounders. There is going to be pressure to make the right pick on day two of the draft, especially if Washington decides to move the first round pick to get Garrett. 

The Commanders showed they could add depth along both lines in the last draft, and they should invest some draft capital there again. But the Commanders are also going to have to find playmakers for the offense, some secondary help, and a linebacker. It's a lot to look for, so maybe there's a trade down to get additional picks.

4)  Avoid Handing Out Silly Big Money Contracts

Finally, just because Washington has $79 million to spend, doesn't mean that they should. Tee Higgins is technically available, but everyone seems to think Cincinnati would use the franchise tag on him for the second year in a row rather than lose him. It was fun to imagine a Terry McLaurin/Tee Higgins receiving tandem, but that seems unlikely now. Kind of related is that there are interesting wide receivers available or soon to be available like Chris Godwin, Amari Cooper, Stefon Diggs, Deebo Samuel, and Cooper Kupp who could be interesting options for the number 2 receiver role, but it's hard to judge how smart it would be to bring in one of those guys until we know the cost. 

Josh Sweat would probably solve a lot of Washington's D-Line issues and there is the added benefit of taking him away from Philly, but since he's the top pass rush target, there's a chance the price tag for his services gets real expensive real quick. A bidding war for a guy who most likely benefitted from Philly's extreme depth on the line might not be the best use of time and resources.

Finally, there are a number of offensive linemen available. And it's really tempting to think the Commanders could use another starter on the line since Sam Cosmi probably won't be ready to play at the start of the season. While past regimes in Washington would probably look to win the offseason, I think Adam Peters and company have shown they operate in a level-headed fashion.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Best Actor

Okay, let's wrap up this look at the acting Oscars since the year 2000 with a look at Best Actor, a category where if you play a historical figure, any historical figure, you're probably gonna win. You don't even have to play him particularly well, you just have to play a historical figure and then get your acceptance speech ready. I'm being slightly facetious, but seriously, 14 of the wins this century have been for a biopic of some kind (including Cillian Murphy for Oppenheimer). 

Quick recap: I'm going to look at the five nominees and decide if they got it right or not. The four answers to that question are Yes, Probably, Debatable, and No. What's the difference between Probably and Debatable? I don't know! One last note: I'm not going to deal with performances that got snubbed because then this turns from a fun little exercise into A Thing. And I'm not here to do A Thing. Let's get into it.

2000 Winner: Russell Crowe, Gladiator. Nominees: Javier Bardem, Before Night Falls; Tom Hanks, Cast Away; Ed Harris, Pollock; Geoffrey Rush, Quills.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Are you really going to argue with Maximus Decimus Meridius? He's father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and he will have his vengeance in this life or the next. It is wild that this is to date the last time Tom Hanks was in the field of nominees for Best Actor. He's the quintessential American leading man for his generation, but he hasn't been able to land a Best Actor nom in nearly a quarter century.

2001 Winner: Denzel Washington, Training Day. Nominees: Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind; Sean Penn, I Am Sam; Will Smith, Ali; Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Denzel gets his Leading Actor Oscar. You could say that Training Day isn't the greatest film Denzel has made, but he carries it, and you can't argue with his win.

2002 Winner: Adrien Brody, The Pianist. Nominees: Nicolas Cage, Adaptation.; Michael Caine, The Quiet American; Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York; Jack Nicholson, About Schmidt.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Brody has had an interesting career and he was very good in The Pianist, but man does he stick out like a sore thumb in this group of nominees. There are some heavy hitters in this lineup. Day-Lewis and Cage were probably the men vying for win here.

2003 Winner: Sean Penn, Mystic River. Nominees: Johnny Depp, PotC: The Curse of the Black Pearl; Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog; Jude Law, Cold Mountain; Bill Murray, Lost in Translation.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Sean Penn is talented actor and he's got two Oscars. So we will let him keep one of them, but man, it would be cool to live in a world that is inhabited by Academy Award winner Bill Murray.

2004 Winner: Jamie Foxx, Ray. Nominees: Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda; Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland; Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator; Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. I've talked about this in some of the other posts, but this is a You've Had a Great Year Oscar. Foxx was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor, so he was probably going to win something. He's also a great leading man. Yes, Ray might not be the best biopic, but an Oscar for Foxx is right.

2005 Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote; Nominees: Terrence Howard, Hustle & Flow; Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain; Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line; David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. HOWEVER this is what I'm talking about when I joke about how this is a category is about being in a biopic. Hoffman was a phenomenal actor and he was great as Truman Capote, but the same can be said about Ledger. And sometimes it feels like this category recognizes a physical transformation to look like someone else more than just rewarding acting.

2006 Winner: Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland. Nominees: Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond; Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson; Peter O'Toole, Venus; Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Good for Forest Whitaker, but this was a supporting role. This is an Oscar that could've gone to either DiCaprio or Gosling. Or we could have finally given O'Toole an Oscar win. Yes, it would've been overdue and a career-achievement Oscar, but c'mon.

2007 Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood. Nominees: George Clooney, Michael Clayton; Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street; Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah; Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Daniel Plainview is one of the great film monsters and DDL is perfect in the role. 

2008 Winner: Sean Penn, Milk. Nominees: Richard Jenkins, The Visitor; Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon; Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Look, I let Sean Penn keep his first Oscar, but he's not a two-time winner. You could either take away the Mystic River win or the Milk win. I'm taking away this one and giving it to Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler.

2009 Winner: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart. Nominees: George Clooney, Up in the Air; Colin Firth, A Single Man; Morgan Freeman, Invictus; Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. Jeff Bridges gets a career-achievement Oscar here, and it's a fine win. But Clooney and First are both right there with award worthy performances. To me, though, the big miss here is Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker, his breakout role as the wildman, SFC William James.

2010 Winner: Colin Firth, The King's Speech. Nominees: Javier Bardem, Biutiful; Jeff Bridges, True Grit; Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network; James Franco, 127 Hours.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. This is a case of a make-up Oscar. As I briefly touched on, Firth could've been a deserving winner the year prior. Also, hey, Jeff Bridges is here again! Feels like some people just checked the same names two years in a row. But the performance here that should've won is Eisenberg for The Social Network. His version of Zuckerberg is the lasting impression of one of the most influential people in our world. I know I'm falling into the trap of rewarding an actor for playing a real person, but this is kind of the inverse, since we didn't know much about Zuckerberg at the time (we kind of still don't) and this performance has defined who he is for a lot of people.

2011 Winner:  Jean Dujardin, The Artist. Nominees: Demian Bichir, A Better Life; George Clooney, The Descendents; Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Brad Pitt, Moneyball. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. I get that there was a wave of enthusiasm for The Artist, but this is a performance that just doesn't stand out any more. Part of me thinks that Clooney cast Dujardin in The Monuments Men just so he could kill his character off. Anyways, it's too bad for Clooney to lose Lead Actor again, he's had some bad luck the year's he's been nominated. I could see giving it to any of the men nominated. If I have to pick one, I'll go with Oldman.

2012 Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln. Nominees: Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook; Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables; Joaquin Peonix, The Master; Denzel Washington, Flight.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. I mean, Day-Lewis is Lincoln. I feel bad for Cooper who was right there step-for-step with Jennifer Lawrence in making Silver Linings Playbook  work so well.

2013 Winner: Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club. Nominees: Christian Bale, American Hustle; Bruce Dern, Nebraska; Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street; Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Sadly, the McConaughesaince overwhelmed the Oscars. I am glad McConaughey found his passion for acting again and he's given us some great performances, but, to be honest, his work in The Wolf of Wall Street would've been more interesting in the Supporting category. Speaking of The Wolf of Wall Street, DiCaprio should have picked up his Oscar here.

2014 Winner: Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything. Nominees: Steve Carell, Foxcatcher; Bradley Cooper, American Sniper; Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game; Michael Keaton, Birdman.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Redmayne wins for an ok biopic. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but there have got to be better ways to showcase lead performances. I'm sort of a hypocrite because one of the two actors I'm thinking about is Carell for playing John du Pont, which was another role the required physical transformation and imitation. You could also go with Keaton for Birdman where he played an actor on the brink of a breakdown.

2015 Winner: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant. Nominees: Bryan Cranston, Trumbo; Matt Damon, The Martian; Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs; Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. There was very much a "it's time" feel to DiCaprio's Oscar win, but if he's already won for playing Jordan Belfort, we can look elsewhere. For my money, Matt Damon is the winner. The Martian isn't a life-changing movie, but it's a lot of fun and very rewatchable and a lot of that is due to Damon's no frills lead performance.

2016 Winner: Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea Nominees: Andrew Garfield, Hacksaw Ridge; Ryan Gosling, La La Land; Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic; Denzel Washington, Fences.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. There is a great debate here between Affleck and Washington. I love Manchester by the Sea, and feel this was the right call, but if you're telling me Denzel should have won, I won't fight you on that.

2017 Winner: Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour Nominees: Timothee Chalament, Call Me By Your Name; Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread; Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out; Denzel Washington, Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. I get in the real world that Gary Oldman was due for a win, but we gave him the win for playing George Smiley. So we are free to go in a different direction. I'm going with Kaluuya for Get Out, a film whose impact and legacy keeps growing and growing.

2018 Winner: Ram Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody Nominees: Christian Bale, Vice; Bradley Cooper, A Star is Born; Willem Dafoe, At Eternity's Gate; Viggo Mortenson, Green Book.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Malek is a fun and interesting actor, but this ain't it. I'd go with either Bale or Cooper. Both men are due for Best Actor wins, but since Bale has an Oscar for Supporting Actor, I'll go with Cooper, who so far has always been a bridesmaid at the Oscars.

2019 Winner: Joaquin Phoenix, Joker Nominees: Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory; Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; Adam Driver, Marriage Story; Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. I can totally see this a career-achievement Oscar. I wasn't the biggest fan of Joker, but I can see how he was due for a win and don't have a huge problem with it. But maybe Rick Dalton was DiCaprio's Oscar winning role? Or maybe the Oscar should've gone to Adam Driver for Marriage Story.

2020 Winner: Anthony Hopkins, The Father Nominees: Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal; Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom;  Gary Oldman, Mank; Steven Yuen, Minari.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. We all know this was supposed to Chadwick Boseman's Oscar. The producers of the telecast knew it, everyone knew it except for the Academy. Anthony Hopkins didn't show up for the ceremony and released an acceptance video a few days later where he seemed confused and slightly embarrassed. Hopkins gave a great performance, but this was sadly Boseman's final performance and it is excellent. This is one of the weirder Oscar loses ever.

2021 Winner: Will Smith, King Richard Nominees: Javier Bardem, Being the Ricardos; Benedict Cumberbatch, The Power of the Dog; Andrew Garfield, Tick, Tick... Boom!; Denzel Washington, The Tragedy of Macbeth.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. This is so sad because what should have just been an either/or choice has become something everyone is embarrassed by because of the The Slap. This was a two-man race between Smith and Cumberbatch, with Smith coming out on top. But everything is just weird.

2022 Winner: Brendan Fraser, The Whale Nominees: Austin Butler, Elvis; Colin Farrell, The Banshees of Inisherin; Paul Mescal, Aftersun; Bill Nighy, Living.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Fraser made his comeback with this this film, and while it's to be determined what he does with his return to acting, it feels deserved. I think Butler and Farrell could have been legitimate winners, but the story of Fraser coming back combined with his performance made this something that couldn't be stopped.

So what did we learn? Eleven times the Oscars didn't get it right! I think it's because there is a formula for winning the Oscar: play a real person, get an award. I don't want o be cynical, but this is pretty cynical.

Okay, we will wrap this up by looking at the this year's winners next time.

Did the Oscars Get It Right? Best Actress

Whoops! I missed my chance to get this done before the Oscars. Oh well. But let's continue my look at whether the acting awards went the right way or not since 2000. Today, I'll look at one of the big ones: Best Actress. a category where big names and narratives might be more important than the nominated performance.

Quick recap: I'm going to look at the five nominees and decide if they got it right or not. The four answers to that question are Yes, Probably, Debatable, and No. What's the difference between Probably and Debatable? I don't know! One last note: I'm not going to deal with performances that got snubbed because then this turns from a fun little exercise into A Thing. And I'm not here to do A Thing. Let's get into it.

2000 Winner: Julia Roberts, Erin Brokovich. Nominees: Joan Allen, The Contender; Juliette Binoche, Chocolat; Ellen Burstyn, Requiem for a Dream; Laura Linney, You Can Count on Me.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. You could make a case  for Burstyn to win this award, but this is Roberts' crowning achievement. One of the biggest stars of the '80s and '90s gets her award. 

2001 Winner: Halle Berry, Monster's Ball. Nominees: Jude Dench, Iris; Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge!; Sissy Spacek, In the Bedroom; Renee Zellweger, Bridget Jones's Diary.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. On the one hand, no one watches Monster's Ball anymore. It just doesn't have the cultural staying power of Moulin Rouge! or Bridget Jones's Diary. And Berry's career has been very scattershot since her win. However, she is still the only black actress to win lead actress and her performance is a good one. I'm not going to take Berry's Oscar away.

2002 Winner: Nicole Kidman, The Hours. Nominees: Salma Hayek, Frida; Diane Lane, Unfaithful; Julianne Moore, Far From Heaven; Renee Zellweger, Chicago. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Based on the performance, Moore should've won in 2002 rather than having to wait another twelve years to get a statue. Instead Kidman gets the Oscar and a possibly earlier than expected career-achievement win.

2003 Winner: Charlize Theron, Monster. Nominees: Keisha Castle-Hughes, Whale Rider; Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give; Samantha Morton, In America; Naomi Watts, 21 Grams.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. This was the moment Theron arrived as more than a pretty face. I know some people hold this up as an example of deglamming to win, but Theron has shown over the years that she takes the craft of acting seriously and she deserves the win.

2004 Winner: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby. Nominees: Annette  Bening, Being Julia; Catalina Sandino Moreno, Maria Full of Grace; Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake; Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Ok, so look at the list of women who have won multiple Best Actress Oscars and Hilary Swank is maybe a bit out of her depth. And then you've got Winslet. This is where she should have won. Her not winning here sets up a bigger travesty a few years later.

2005 Winner: Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line. Nominees: Judi Dench, Mrs Henderson Presents; Felicity Huffman, Transamerica; Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice; Charlize Theron, North Country.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Witherspoon is fine as June Carter Cash, and if we're looking at legacy, then Witherspoon does deserve an Oscar at some point, but the luster is kind of off Walk the Line ever since Dewey Cox decided to Walk Hard a few years afterwards. Knightley probably has the biggest gripe about losing in 2005.

2006 Winner: Helen Mirren, The Queen. Nominees: Penelope Cruz, Volver; Jude Dench, Notes on a Scandal; Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada; Kate Winslet, Little Children.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Helen Mirren being one of the great actors of her generation is taken as gospel. The Queen  might not be the best movie, but her performance is really good.

2007 Winner: Marion Cotillard, Le Vie En Rose. Nominees: Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age; Julie Christie, Away from Her; Laura Linney, The Savages; Elliot Page, Juno.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. I always find it fascinating when a performance in a foreign language gets nominated. It's even more fascinating when a foreign language performance wins. So I'll give props to Cotillard for her win, but Page's performance in Juno is the performance from this group that sticks with me the most after all these years. I have no idea how Page feels about his performance at this point in time, but good work is good work.

2008 Winner: Kate Winslet, The Reader Nominees: Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married; Angelina Jolie, Changeling; Melissa Leo, Frozen River; Meryl Streep, Doubt.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. 

The Reader/I haven't seen The Reader/I was gonna see it later but I fell behind/My Batmobile took longer than I thought to design. The Reader/I know I need to see the Reader/I even went to down to theater but there was a line/Of all the people watching Iron Man a second time 

This was from Hugh Jackman's opening number at the ceremony. Everyone knew this was a makeup for past mistakes. To pick a winner for this year, I would point to either Streep or Hathaway. I love Doubt, so I may be biased, which is why I gave two options for who should've won.

2009 Winner: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side. Nominees: Helen Mirren, The Last Station; Carey Mulligan, An Education; Gabourey Sidibe, Precious; Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Ok, we're getting off the rails here. Best case, The Blind Side was simplistic look at life in football-obsessed America. Worst case, it was an outright manipulation. And we now know the story behind the film and book are pretty close to the worst-case scenario. Sandra Bullock got her career-achievement Oscar here, but Carey Mulligan should've won. Mulligan is still chasing her Oscar and is sadly trending towards Glenn Close and Annette Bening territory this rate.

2010 Winner: Natalie Portman, Black Swan. Nominees: Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right; Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole; Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone; Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. This is a strong field of nominees and any of them would be a deserving winner. But Portman proved to be a strong center of gravity for the bonkers Black Swan, giving a performance that holds the whole picture together.

2011 Winner: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady. Nominees: Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs; Viola Davis, The Help; Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Streep seemed to win by default here. Sometimes, I wish they would release the vote totals because I would imagine this was a pretty close race. I think Mara is probably the deserved winner, but Dragon Tattoo was probably too out there for some voters. Her performance wasn't nominated in the SAG awards or BAFTAs that year. Maybe Viola Davis should've won? I don't know, I do know that this is not some of Streep's best work.

2012 Winner: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook. Nominees: Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty; Emmanuelle Riva, Amour; Quvenshane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild; Naomi Watts, The Impossible.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Lawrence is so good in Silver Linings Playbook so no complaints here. The thing that stinks is that Chastain is so good in Zero Dark Thirty. This is a case where either win would've been justified.

2013 Winner: Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine. Nominees: Amy Adams, American Hustle; Sandra Bullock, Gravity; Judi Dench, Philomena; Meryl Streep, August: Osage County.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Blanchett is one of the best around and this spin on A Streetcar Named Desire gives Blanchett a lot of great opportunities. Still, I can see alternate universes where Adams, Bullock, or Streep walk away with the win. (Adams needs a win at some point here, people).

2014 Winner: Julianne Moore, Still Alice. Nominees: Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night; Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything; Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl; Reese Witherspoon, Wild.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Pike should've won for Gone Girl and her performance as Amazing Amy. Instead, the Oscar went to Moore for a career-achievement win. But if she'd won back in 2002, there wouldn't be an obligation to make sure Moore has a win. I know, this is a lot of what-if, but that's what we are doing here.

2015 Winner: Brie Larson, Room. Nominees: Cate Blanchett, Carol; Jennifer Lawrence, Joy; Charlotte, Rampling, 45 Years; Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. This was a close call for me, but I ultimately, yes, this win is the right call. Although, Blanchett and Ronan had very strong cases for the win this year.

2016 Winner: Emma Stone, La La Land. Nominees: Isabelle Huppert, Elle; Ruth Negga, Loving; Natalie Portman, Jackie; Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Emma Stone in La La Land makes so much sense. It's just right. Of the other nominees, Negga got overlooked.

2017 Winner: Frances McDormand, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Nominees: Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water; Margot Robbie, I, Tonya; Saoirse Ronan, Lady Bird; Meryl Streep, The Post.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. Frances McDormand enters the chat, getting her second Best Actress win (and first in 21 years) for her performance in the polarizing Three Billboards. I've got no problem with the win, but this was a deep field of nominees. I'm partial to Ronan in Lady Bird, but you can make strong cases for each performance. This is debatable in the best kind of way.

2018 Winner: Olivia Colman, The Favourite. Nominees: Yalitza Aparicio, Roma; Glenn Close, The Wife; Lady Gaga, A Star is Born; Melissa McCarthy, Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. Again this is debatable in the good way. Colman gives a great performance in The Favourite (and every actress is telling her agent to get them on Yorgos Lanthimos's radar today, however, Emma Stone is going to fiercely fight to keep them all away, but that's a discussion for later). But what a good field of nominees. Gaga and Close probably came nearest the win, but this was a good, fun race for the Oscar.

2019 Winner: Renee Zellweger, Judy. Nominees: Cynthia Erivo, Harriet; Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story; Saoirse Ronan, Little Women; Charlize Theron, Bombshell.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Ugh. What a bummer. After two years of stellar winners and nominees, the Academy follows it up with Zellweger winning her second Oscar for Judy? Really?!? Maybe it was a career-achievement win, but Zellweger already has an Oscar at home. Judy is a mess of a movie. I don't know what was going on here. This Oscar should've gone to either ScarJo or Saoirse. ScarJo had a great year, she was also nominated for Jojo Rabbit (speaking of messy movies...) and Ronan capped off a great run of three nominations in five years. Either of them would be a deserving winner.

2020 Winner: Frances McDormand, Nomadland. Nominees: Viola Davis, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom; Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday; Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman; Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Whoa. Frances McDormand becomes the woman with the second-most Lead Actress Oscars behind only someone named Katherine Hepburn. (Anyone ever heard of her?) You can make a strong case for Davis (she did win the SAG award), but it's hard to quibble with McDormand here.

2021 Winner: Jessica Chastain, The Eyes of Tammy Faye. Nominees: Olivia Colman, The Lost Daughter; Penelope Cruz, Parallel Mothers; Nicole Kidman, Being the Ricardos; Kristen Stewart, Spencer.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Jessica Chastain does deserve an Oscar, but for this fairly by the numbers biopic of Tammy Faye Baker? Pass. I think either Colman or Cruz would have been interesting choices here. But at least Chastain makes up for missing out on the 2012 Best Actress prize.

2022 Winner: Michelle Yeoh, Everything Everywhere All at Once. Nominees: Cate Blanchett, Tar; Ana de Armas, Blonde; Andrea Riseborough, To Leslie; Michelle Williams, The Fablemans.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Yeoh finally gets to do all the things that she is capable of in an American film. Blanchett and Williams probably got robbed a bit here, but no one was going to win over Yeoh.

So what did we learn? With eight no's Best Actress has the most confusing decisions of the categories we've looked at so far. This makes sense to an extent because we all have strong opinions about lead performances. With supporting roles, a good role in a less than stellar film can be appreciated or good performance in a great movie can be lifted up. But when you're number one on the call sheet, there are going to be a lot more criticisms. However, I do tally up nine yeses, with three probablies and three debatables. And the debatables all could have been yeses. So it is not like Best Actress has a terrible track record. Next I'll look at Best Actor and then I'll finish up by looking at the this year's winners (which I kind of hinted at by talking about Emma Stone in the 2018 writeup.

Did the Oscars Get It Right? Best Supporting Actor

Okay, back with part two of "Did the Oscars Get It Right?" my look at whether the acting awards went the right way or not since 2000. Today, I'll look at Best Supporting Actor, a category that is divided between everyday, regular Joe character actors just doing the work and leading men slumming it amongst the little people. 

Quick recap: I'm going to look at the five nominees and decide if they got it right or not. Tthe four answers to that question are Yes, Probably, Debatable, and No. What's the difference between Probably and Debatable? I don't know! But it feels like  One last note: I'm not going to deal with performances that got snubbed because then this turns from a fun little exercise into A Thing. And I'm not here to do A Thing. Let's get into it.

2000 Winner: Benicio del Toro, Traffic. Nominees: Jeff Bridges, The Contender; Willem Dafoe, Shadow of the Vampire; Albert Finney, Erin Brockovich; Joaquin Phoenix, Gladiator.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Del Toro's win for his performance as Mexican police officer caught in the Drug War was very much deserved. Traffic has faded from memory in recent years, but when it came out, it was a pretty big deal and of the many performances in the film, del Toro's was the one that stood out the most. But let's give credit to Dafoe for getting a nom for the truly bonkers Shadow of the Vampire.

2001 Winner: Jim Broadbent, Iris. Nominees: Ethan Hawke, Training Day; Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast; Ian McKellen, LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring; Jon Voight, Ali.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. This one pains me to type because Broadbent is one of those character actors doing the work and he finally got rewarded and beat out four actors who have all been number one on the call sheet on different projects. However, no one has seen Iris and Jim Broadbent gives off major "Who?" vibes. David Letterman even did a top-10 about how unrecognizable Broadbent is. And then Gandalf the freaking Grey is right there, guys. Ok, is Gandalf Sir Ian McKellen's best work? Probably not, but it's a pretty iconic role. Who hasn't done "You shall not pass!" at some point? 

2002 Winner: Chris Cooper, Adaptation. Nominees: Ed Harris, The Hours; Paul Newman, Road to Perdition; John C. Reilly, Chicago; Christopher Walken, Catch Me If You Can. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. This Cooper's moment to step into the spotlight, and he nailed it. Hard to argue with the Academy on this one.

2003 Winner: Tim Robbins, Mystic River. Nominees: Alec Baldwin, The Cooler; Benicio del Toro, 21 Grams; Djimon Hounsou, In America; Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. This is probably a career-achievement Oscar for Robbins more than anything else. He's good in Mystic River, but looking back at things, that film really hasn't had any staying power (of the Dennis Lehane adaptations that followed in the wake of Mystic River, it's definitely been passed by Shutter Island, and probably passed by Gone Baby Gone). So Robbins gets a reward for his years of work, that's fine. But maybe this award would be more interesting going to Watanabe or Hounsou? Or wouldn't it be cool to live in a world where del Toro is a two-time Oscar winner?

2004 Winner: Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby. Nominees: Alan Alda, The Aviator; Thomas Haden Church, Sideways; Jamie Foxx, Collateral; Clive Owen, Closer.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Million Dollar Baby is another Clint Eastwood film that hasn't had the staying power one would've thought when it was released. But just because no one really revisits the film doesn't mean we should take away Freeman's Oscar. Among his fellow nominees, maybe Haden Church has the best claim if we're revising history. Foxx was nominated for Best Actor that year, so he wasn't going to win this. Closer works better as a play, and Alda is a television guy. So Freeman gets his overdue Oscar and that seems right.

2005 Winner: George Clooney, Syriana. Nominees: Matt Dillon, Crash; Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man; Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain; William Hurt, A History of Violence.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. So we've discussed career-achievement Oscars here and in the Best Supporting Actress post, but now we get to something related, but a little bit different: the You've Had a Great Year Oscar. This is the Oscar that you for performance, but it's actually for something else you've done that year. Now some of it comes down to weird timing. You get movies released in the same year despite working on them in different years. It happens, making movies is weird. Clooney won his Oscar for his very good portrayal of a jaded CIA officer in Syriana, but he also won an Oscar in 2005 because he directed, co-starred, and co-wrote Good Night, and Good Luck. He was the fifth person ever to receive acting, writing, and directing nominations in the same year and the first to do across two different films. So he had a very good year. Tough luck for Jake Gyllenhall.

2006 Winner: Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine. Nominees: Jackie Earle Hailey, Little Children; Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond; Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls; Mark Wahlberg, The Departed.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Look, Arkin is very funny in Little Miss Sunshine. And he also has interesting subtle moments in this film as well, so I can't argue with Arkin's win. But maybe an Oscar gets Eddie Murphy to take more roles. Maybe Wahlberg's performance is just as effectively profane as Arkin's was. Maybe Hounsou deserved more credit for Blood Diamond. There are some interesting what ifs, but Arkin's win makes sense.

2007 Winner:  Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men. Nominees: Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War; Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild; Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton. 

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Anton Chigurh is one of the most iconic characters in modern movie history. The only bummer here is that in any other year, all of these other performances would have been very worthy winners.

2008 Winner: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight. Nominees: Josh Brolin, Milk; Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt; Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Ledger's performance as the Joker was phenomenal and it has a very strong, lasting cultural impact. His take on the Joker is most people's definitive take on one of the most iconic characters in pop culture. But damn, Downey and Hoffman gave great performances that year that went unrecognized.

2009 Winner: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds. Nominees: Matt Damon, Invictus; Woody Harrelson, The Messenger; Christopher Plummer, The Last Station; Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Wow, what a three-year run for iconic villains. Hans Landa belongs right up there with Chigurh and the Joker. While there are some good performances among the other nominees, no one is touching Waltz.

2010 Winner: Christian Bale, The Fighter. Nominees: John Hawkes, Winter's Bone; Jeremy Renner, The Town; Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right; Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned that leading men slum it to get an Oscar. Look, Bale deserved an Oscar for something, but I don't The Fighter is just kind of a movie that exists. Good for him, but Hawkes and Ruffalo were definitely robbed. And Renner could make a case as well. And Rush probably wins this award if this category jumped into a time machine back to the 1980s. I'm glad Bale has his Oscar, but he probably deserved it as a lead actor for Vice. But we will get to that later.

2011 Winner: Christopher Plummer, Beginners. Nominees: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn; Jonah Hill, Moneyball; Nick Nolte, Warrior; Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Probably. Simultaneously a deserved win for the role and a career achievement win. Plummer is very good as a gay man who is finally able to come out and explore his sexuality following the death of his wife. Plummer became the oldest man to win Best Supporting Actor with the win, and it is deserved. But I do want to give Nolte credit for his performance in Warrior as another father filled with regrets.

2012 Winner: Christoph Waltz. Django Unchained. Nominees: Alan Arkin, Argo; Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook; Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master; Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Someone was going to get another Oscar this year, and, for some reason, the Academy picked Waltz for creating a character who was essentially the inverse of Hans Landa. Waltz is very interesting and Dr King Schultz is a good character, but, for me, this Oscar should've gone to either De Niro or Hoffman. De Niro got his first nomination in 21 year for Silver Linings Playbook and brought equal force to his scenes with Bradley Cooper. And Hoffman was mysterious, dangerous, and fascinating in The Master. I think this one feels wrong because Hoffman would be dead less than a year after the Oscars ceremony, so it really feels like a missed opportunity to honor him.

2013 Winner: Jaren Leto, Dallas Buyers Club. Nominees: Barkhad Abdi, Captain Phillips; Bradley Cooper, American Hustle; Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave; Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Leto was fine in Dallas Buyers Club, but it kind of feels like McConaughey dragged him to his nomination and win. And the win justified Leto's more whack-a-doo Method acting tendencies. Cooper or Hill would've made sense here. But Fassbender should've gotten the win here.

2014 Winner: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash. Nominees: Robert Duvall, The Judge; Ethan Hawke, Boyhood; Edward Norton, Birdman; Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Simmons is so good in a lot of roles, but he got the role of a lifetime in Whiplash. Sure, he might be more recognizable as J. Jonah Jameson, the yellow M&M, or from his Farmer's Insurance commercials, but he deserved this Oscar over a very stacked field of great actors.

2015 Winner: Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies. Nominees: Christian Bale, The Big Short; Tom Hardy, The Revenant; Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight; Sylvester Stallone, Creed.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. Look, I know that Mark Rylance is a "better" actor than Sylvester Stallone, but we're talking about Rocky Balboa here. One of the most iconic characters of the last 40 years and we couldn't give Stallone an Oscar for it. You can track multiple eras of filmmaking through the lens of Rocky and it's just wrong that Stallone wasn't given a capstone award for it. And beyond all of that, Stallone gives a good performance as a broken version of Balboa. 

2016 Winner: Mahershala Ali, Moonlight. Nominees: Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water; Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea; Dev Patel, Lion; Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Ali was excellent as Juan, a stand-in father figure for the protagonist in Moonlight. 

2017 Winner: Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Nominees: Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project; Woody Harrelson, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri; Richard Jenkins, The Shape of Water; Christopher Plummer, All the Money in the World.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Debatable. I'm not even sure that Rockwell gave the best nominated performance in Three Billboards. Harrelson did great work as cancer-stricken sheriff who is just trying to keep everything together while he still can. Dafoe also gave a great performance in The Florida Project as the manager of a cheap motel in Orlando who tries his best to help the lower-class residents that essentially live there.

2018 Winner: Mahershala Ali, Green Book. Nominees: Adam Driver, Blackkklansman; Sam Eliot, A Star is Born; Richard E. Grant, Can You Ever Forgive Me?; Sam Rockwell, Vice.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? No. This is a tough one. Green Book is a cynical, bad movie. As good as Ali was in it, should we be rewarding it? I don't know. This award probably should've gone to Driver, but the Academy couldn't exactly give him an Oscar while snubbing John David Washington for a film that pointed out the differences between what black men and white could and couldn't do. Sam Elliot or Richard E. Grant would've been worthy winners as well.

2019  Winner: Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Nominees: Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood; Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes; Al Pacino, The Irishman; Joe Pesci, The Irishman.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. One could argue this is a career-achievement Oscar. Maybe it is. But Cliff Booth is just such a good laid-back Brad Pitt role that it's also a deserved one. Now, there are/were questions about the misogyny of the character and perhaps the film, but giving an Oscar to a performer isn't an endorsement of the actions of the character.

2020 Winner: Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah. Nominees: Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7; Leslie Odom Jr, One Night in Miami...; Paul Raci, Sound of Metal; LaKeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah.  

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Kaluuya deserved this Oscar. If anything, he should have more than the two nominations he currently has. (Supporting Actor for Widows and Actor for Nope if you're curious) So this Oscar is very much deserved.

2021 Winner: Troy Kotsur, CODA. Nominees: Ciaran Hinds, Belfast; Jesse Plemons, The Power of the Dog; J.K. Simmons, Being the Ricardos; Kodi Smit-McPhee, The Power of the Dog.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. There aren't a lot of opportunities for deaf actors, and Kotsur took advantage of his moment. Let's shed a tear for the two nominees from The Power of the Dog, though.

2022 Winner: Ke Huy Quan, Everything Everywhere All at Once. Nominees: Brendan Gleeson, The Banshees of Inisherin; Brian Tyree Henry, Causeway; Judd Hirsch, The Fablemans; Barry Keoghan, The Banshees of Inisherin.

Did the Oscars Get it Right? Yes. Quan was the beating heart of the film that swept the Oscars. And for a movie all about the multiverse, there is a little bit of justice for Quan to get an Oscar after he took a long hiatus from acting due to lack of opportunities. It's a good thing that he's back in the film business.

So what did we learn? With 11 yeses, Best Supporting Actor is a category that gets it right more often than not. Even the seven probably and debatable wins feel right. Which is a bit surprising to me. I figured there would be more wins in this category that felt like guys chasing an Oscar, but there really are only a few instances of that. I've got my work cut out for me to wrap up this retrospective before the Oscars Sunday night, but I can do it. Tomorrow, I tackle Best Actress, which I think will have a few more controversies.

Wordle 993: Round and Round

I was going to open with TRAIN, but I don't know, it just didn't feel right. So I deleted it and then decided to go with CARVE for my opening guess. I got green tiles for AR and a yellow for E. This information led me guess EARTH for my second guess and what I was sure was a solve in two. I was feeling that this was a great way to start the weekend, but then what?!? The answer wasn't EARTH? But the first three tiles were all green! How could this be? Then I realized the answer was EARLY. A solid solve in three, but damn, getting it in two would've been awesome.