I think it's just convenient that this kind of logic is applied after-the-fact.
I mean, you would think that if the Dolphins suspended a player for a game (twice!) for being out of shape, that he would be on the way out of town. But instead,
that player was assigned a franchise tag and ultimately given a
two-year deal (the multi-year contract was under Philbin). Another Dolphins player was
convicted of assault a few months before being given a
4-year extension.
Wallace complained about not being thrown to during a win... does that mean he's out of town next offseason?
Starks was upset about the franchise tag... does that mean he definitely won't be re-signed? That would be interesting, since
Soliai is also unhappy with his contract. Are both of them on their way out?
I think this "not a Philbin guy" nonsense is just a smokescreen so the front office can try to avoid explaining their decisions on football merits.