No disrespect intended to Vernon, I always liked the guy. But consider the source, one DE with a bloated contract defending another DE with a bloated contract … that's the very definition of a self-serving comment. I'm sure OV sincerely believes it … but that doesn't change the fact that it is a self-serving comment.
The Dolphins are not the same team with the same plan of attack in 2019 that they were before the 2018 season. We're blowing it up and starting over, which means we're taking a long-term approach to team building, and a grizzled veteran like Quinn simply isn't going to be worth much to a team targeting 2020 or 2021 before it is fully competing again. Quinn is not worth the cost in the interim, and no matter how effective he might be during the next year or two, it's not enough to make this team win. The more important piece is that he's unlikely to be performing at a high level when we need him to do so, which is 2021 and the years after that. He simply has no future here.
With that in mind, yeah, he must go. If we can get something in trade for his contract, we trade him. If not, we cut him and move on. But, OV is wrong … past performances are not the basis of future contract decisions. At best they represent indicators from which we extrapolate expected future performance … and the future we're building for isn't 2019, it doesn't even begin until 2020, and when we'll need production is 2021, by which time Quinn is unlikely to be able to produce. And, we shouldn't be paying that price in the interim. Quinn is not going to be a Miami Dolphin in 2019, it just doesn't make any sense.
What OV should have said is that comparing Quinn to Tannehill is completely appropriate, because neither veteran player makes sense for the rebuilding Dolphins, so both guys should be looking for greener pastures to continue their careers. Neither is a bad guy or a bad player, but neither is a fit for what the Dolphins are doing at this time either.