Hey, after nearly a day with nary a comment, I felt I had to do something drastic to attract readers! And, for the record, I am not remotely qualified to opine about what women secretly think.
I want to talk about the concept of "upside". When we say that So-and-so lacks upside, we mean that his skills or abilities are not expected to grow significantly over the coming years. We believe he has peaked or will do so before too long.
Now, for a while, I've noticed that some folks tend to equate a 4-year college background with low upside. Why is this? Is a player already over the hill at the age of 21 or 22? Of course not. Do most players continue to improve, barring major injuries, until their late twenties? It seems so.
In the case of a typical NBA-bound college grad, there seems to be, among some basketball fans, a presumption that he must not be very good, or he must've had to work on some critical weaknesses in his game; otherwise, he would have forgone at least his senior year in order to enter the draft earlier. Perhaps this is true of some, or even most, such players. Regardless, an NBA rookie of 21 or 22, no matter what is present skill level, certainly has time to hone his abilities, and so there seems to be no good reason to apply the "low upside" label in this case.
Over the past year, I 've read discussions in which Lillard has been said to lack upside, and now some are arguing the same is true of McCollum. Personally, I can't see any reasonable basis for such an assertion. Lillard, although he has already demonstrated that he is a good NBA player, apparently possesses a strong work ethic, and he should continue to improve aspects of his game. And, although at this point we don't know how McCollum will do, I am pretty sure that he doesn't lack "upside", either.