It doesn't!
library(ggplot2)
N <- 1000
z <- runif(N, 0, 50)
y <- 0.02*z^2
L <- lm(y ~ z)
d <- data.frame(
Z = z,
Y = y
)
ggplot(d, aes(x = Z, y = Y)) +
geom_point() +
geom_abline(
intercept = summary(L)$coef[1, 1],
slope = summary(L)$coef[2, 1]
)
summary(L)$r.squared # 0.9383307
In the above example, I get $R^2>0.93$, and $R^2$ is a transformation of the residual sum of squares. While it is hard to say exactly what constitutes a good $R^2$ value or a good (small) residual sum of squares, $R^2>0.93$ is usually considered quite high, indicating a small residual sum of squares. Thus, there must be a good linear relationship between the prediction $Z$ and outcome $Y$, right? Wrong!

The points quite clearly do not fit a line, which is consistent with the simulation giving the relationship as being quadratic.
What a small residual sum of squares does tell you is that the predictions are generally close to the observed values. It might be that you could do better, such as fitting a quadratic term to the above regression.
This great post gives another example and further elaboration. While the question there explicitly deals with $R^2$ and not the residual sum of squares, they are functions of each other.
$$
\text{Residual Sum of Squares} =\overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\left(
y_i-\hat y_i
\right)^2\\
\text{Total Sum of Squares} = \overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\left(
y_i-\bar y
\right)^2
$$$$
R^2=1-\left(\dfrac{
\overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\left(
y_i-\hat y_i
\right)^2
}{
\overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\left(
y_i-\bar y
\right)^2
}\right)=1-\left(\dfrac{
\text{Residual Sum of Squares}
}{
\text{Total Sum of Squares}
}\right)\\
\Big\Updownarrow\\
\left[\text{Residual Sum of Squares}\right] = (R^2 - 1)\left[\text{Total Sum of Squares}\right]
$$