HA-HA, Quine IS terse and jargoned!
The basic gist is that Quine argued against the value of metaphysics as anything can be proven metaphysically. Metaphysics allows for infinite possibilities which, he thinks, works against its usefulness. He is a naturalist and a pragmatist. However, he realized, as is being pointed out at PeacefulScience, that you can’t get rid of metaphysics. One needs a certain framework, but his framework was more indicative of a desert than a rain forest. He was a minimalist in terms of metaphysical requirements, only committing to that which is necessary to get work done. But these commitments where always, even if seemingly necessary to get work done, underdetermined by the data/arguments and thus more akin to aesthetic judgements.
I like what Quine has to say about metaphysics, and he points one toward a naturalized view (i.e., scientific view) of philosophy. He, of course, has been criticized in the philosophical world as metaphysics has made a comeback. However, for philosophers with a naturalistic bent, he is the locus classicus.