Mr. WEO Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 More like Matt Leinart. That they still think he has any is the only explanation I can see for the Cards still sticking with that chump. At least the Bills parted ways with Losman. So did the Raiders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cage Posted July 1, 2010 Author Share Posted July 1, 2010 I think the reason so many people get down on Bell is because they want to see him play more - like Hardy - they've got the physical measurables that should equate to excellence on the field, but they just haven't maximized their skills. If we could see Bell practice, and have the coaches and teammates say, "Wow, this guy is good", then we wouldn't necessarily feel like we're cheap when we don't go after guys like McNiel and Gaither. As it is right now, the prospect of Bell being our opening day starter is all very much a mystery. And, I think, people see long injuries and they assume a player is weak, or lacking in motivation, mental toughness. As for development - with guys like Maybin and Bell, their second years should show us something - if we are in the same place with them after this season, then I think you have to look to replace them, so you're not depending on them. I think that is a big difference between good teams and bad teams with "upside" and "potential" - namely, good teams have starters in place that have proven capable of starting - they don't have a lot of guys that need to immediately live up to potential, or that are being rushed into developing. They get playing time as they can handle it, and in the meantime can learn from the veterans ahead of them. In situations like ours - we're depending on some players to play at a high level without having had the time to develop, and so we're naturally going to see growing pains, and we've just got to hope that early setbacks don't damage their confidence and hinder their development - like, I think, happened to Edwards. Good post,... I like your perspective so this is really a hell of an important year. We'll either come out of it high as a kite or in dumps On offense there's Bell, Wood, Levitre, Steve Johnson, Hardy, Nelson... not to mention QBs On defense there's Maybin, McKelvin, Pozluszny, Byrd All of these guys are 2-3 year guys. If 2/3 of these guys are successful we'll have to feel good for the following year and start living the "upside". If they're a bunch of busts then we truly keep starting over... ugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 The phrase "upside" has been so widely and loosely used, I'd like to find out what the definition is for this. I can't even offer one to start the discussion as its nearly lost all meaning for me Its typically thrown out as justification of why we should keep player A over player B... ex. Steve Johnson has more "upside" than Josh Reed or why we should acquire player A... ex. Troy Smith has more "upside" than any of the QBs on our roster Definitions please, this has become a useless phrase! Upside: Hasn't played enough to prove one way or the other whether he should be starting for the Bills or tending bar at the Big Tree Inn. Here's an alternative: A backup to a player the user of the word upside hates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 "upside" is the part of your head that I'll be going if you cross me, as in. "I'm going to go upside your head!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 So did the Raiders The Raiders also dealt Randy Moss for a 4th rounder. And took Jamarcus Russell 1st overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Bronson Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Upside is more like a positive aspect. A higher trend in which we have not one person on this team yet that has an upside lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Bronson Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 "upside" is the part of your head that I'll be going if you cross me, as in. "I'm going to go upside your head!" LOL!! Good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Upside is similar to potential. In the words of Bill Parcells, "it means you haven't done nothing yet." But the player hasn't proven he sucks yet... as in Steve Johnson has more upside than Josh Reed because we know that Reed has sucked for years. In three years we will know that Johnson sucks as well and can talk about another 7th round WR with upside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FitzShowUsYourTitz Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 The phrase "upside" has been so widely and loosely used, I'd like to find out what the definition is for this. I can't even offer one to start the discussion as its nearly lost all meaning for me Its typically thrown out as justification of why we should keep player A over player B... ex. Steve Johnson has more "upside" than Josh Reed or why we should acquire player A... ex. Troy Smith has more "upside" than any of the QBs on our roster Definitions please, this has become a useless phrase! ummm......definition is not contributing now but could do really well in the future. Or, most of the Bills roster the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 But the player hasn't proven he sucks yet... as in Steve Johnson has more upside than Josh Reed because we know that Reed has sucked for years. In three years we will know that Johnson sucks as well and can talk about another 7th round WR with upside Where have you gone Kamil Loud a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I thought "upside" was a measure of the whiteness of defensive linemen. See also: Motor, High Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Man Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Upside, n., a bald faced lie about an NFL player that has been discovered to be a bust before he ever plays a regular season down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharper802 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I thought "upside" was a measure of the whiteness of defensive linemen. See also: Motor, High That is a fine post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Where have you gone Kamil Loud a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Rodney Bellinger might have worked better. It's a syllable thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Upside = potential Upside means the (projected or assumed) upper limits of your potential. So imagine two guys you're considering drafting. One is an extremely good player right now, but has been extremely well-coached and has essentially reached the limits of his potential. That guy has no upside. This last year, think Brian Bulaga. He's getting as much out of himself as he has. He's not going to get significantly better. The second is, who knows?, a good player, a mediocre player, or a sensational player. But he hasn't reached his limits in one or more of many areas. Maybe he's never spent much time in the weight room. Maybe he didn't get great coaching at his position, and with a few technique tweaks, he could get much better. Or maybe he plays a position where experience improves the smart player who is willing to learn, WR, say, or QB. In any case, whatever level he is at now, he has the potential of improving beyond that level. That is a guy with upside. This last draft, think Anthony Davis, who played well at Rutgers, but has the athletic ability to be insanely good. Needless to say, some guys, perhaps a large percentage, never reach their upside, or even get close. Others do. Some here appear to think that if you have upside, it means you're an underachiever, or a guy who hasn't worked hard. They view it as a negative. It's not. It's neutral. It can be good (you didn't get coached all that well, or were playing at the wrong position like a Jason Peters) or bad (you were lazy and never accepted coaching or spent time in the weight room). The bottom line is that it means you might get better, but there's never a guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 OK, so lots of good responses... My question then becomes why are we so down on Demetrious Bell (lets ignore the injury for a moment) The guy seems to define "upside"... young, cheap, highly athletic, has some start under his belt, put in a very difficult situation last year -- learning no-huddle -- last second cut of Langston Walker -- all sorts of other injuries on the line -- 2 other rookie starters -- starting 5 had 0 pre-season games under their belt -- firing OC at start of season with Van Pelt thrown in -- new coaching staff seems to be thinking well of him despite having no ties to a 7th rounder they didn't draft I'm sure I could add more if I thought about it some more. His "upside" seems remarkable, we should be excited about how much he'll improve his second year, but everyone seems to be down on him. I don't know jack about being an offensive linemen and have reviewed no tape of his body of work, so if anyone can explain to me why we're negative about Bell, but ga-ga over the "upside" of a bunch of others, who are backups here or elsewhere I would appreciate it Bell's upside is far away. He was most likely the worst OL in the league last year. It's not smart to expect different this year. (Don't believe he was the worst? Go to profootballfocus.com and look at the position ranking for OLs. Then prorate his score for the eight games he played out to a full sixteen game season. No tackle comes close, though I haven't carefully checked the centers and guards.) However, he is quite raw at his position and can greatly improve in technique, and he was extremely weak for an OL when drafted and our S&C program was one of the worst in the league, if not the worst. So, there's the possibility that with a lot more experience and a lot more strength, he might become good some day. The thing is, it's likely to be two or three more years. If it ever happens at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 The Raiders also dealt Randy Moss for a 4th rounder. And took Jamarcus Russell 1st overall. Yes, letting Losman go was equal to those monstrous errors. But maybe you're right---I'll switch to "the Raiders actually picked up Losman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 potential /thread Yup. Dumb question, to be blunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Upside is similar to potential. In the words of Bill Parcells, "it means you haven't done nothing yet." How much would you love Parcells if he had ever coached the Bills? I've always been a fan of his bluntness. Upside, n., a bald faced lie about an NFL player who is a bust that is used to justify adding him to the team's roster. Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Yes, letting Losman go was equal to those monstrous errors. But maybe you're right---I'll switch to "the Raiders actually picked up Losman." I knew that would be your reply. But the point was that the Raiders aren't reasonable judges of anything. They're like the Lindsay Lohans of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts