As usual, the issue is communication. For you, we had problems at 20 defensive roster spots. We wanted to develop a future inside linebacker which meant that we had a current problem. And so we did by your definition of "problem".
Again, drafting 3 inside linebackers in the first 3 rounds after the team had avoided using high round picks on linebackers for most of Belichick's tenure would seem to indicate that the team considered the ILB situation to be a problem. That would be Belichick defining it as such, not me. I simply would be in agreement with him on the matter.
As an analogy, I am fine with our offensive line where we add a player just about every year. I guess I should be aghast at this problem area since we add a new player each year, and this situation is never solved. Nonsense! We have a fine offensive line, and a fine approach to managing the unit.
1.) If you have a non-QB position that you draft for every year, and yet you still have to fall back upon a player who will be 34 years old and can't stay healthy to be your starter, your approach is, at least arguably, not working all that well.
2.) When you attempt an analogy that involves the use of late round picks being compared to a situation using early round picks, you fail with your analogy.
TWO inside linebackers get almost all the reps. We usually have a third in the rotation, but this is not essential. Belichick drafted McKenzie as Bruschi's roster replacement, and had Seau in the wings in case of an emergency (which choice he used when Bruschi, Mayo and McKenzie were all unavailable).
If he was just drafting to replace Bruschi, he wouldn't have needed to draft Spikes with Mayo, Guyton and McKenzie already on board.
You and I may disagree with Belichick's assessment of the ILB position, then and now. However, it is what it is, and what it was. How satisfied was Belichick with Mayo and Guyton? He had an apportunity to draft Laurinitis or Maluaga and decided that he didn't have a sufficient need for 2009 help to make the move. As I said, you and I disagree then and now with the choice of Chung over a linebacker. You and I believe that this choice was wrong is foresight and in hindsight.
Belichick still had Bruschi available at the time that he drafted Chung. Had he known that Bruschi's game would completely collapse to the point of retirement, I'm not sure what he drafting strategy would have been. I don't think he'd have drafted Maualuga anyway, though, because Maualuga's a chucklehead. As for Laurinitis, the Dolphins needed ILB help, too, and they passed on him, as did the Browns and Broncos. Four 3-4 defense teams in need of ILBs passed on Laurinitis and Maualuga, so I'm not sure why you point to them as players that would/should have been chosen.
That doesn't change the apparent reality that Belichick did not see the 2009 ILB unit as the problem of the defense. I do agree that if there are 20 problem roster spots, then ILB is indeed a problem.
Actually, what it does is show how one can see the same facts and come to radically different conclusions about it.
I see the retirement of Bruschi followed by the return of Seau
I see the insertion of a former UFDA, who's weak against the run, into the starting lineup at ILB in 2009
I see the attempt to bring in free agents for the spot in consecutive seasons (see Paris Lenon and Victor Hobson)
I see 3 high ILB picks in 3 seasons
I look at all of that and I see signs and evidence that Belichick realized ILB was a position of need. You see it as business as usual, despite the reality that paying such high prices for inside linebackers in the draft had not previously been done in the BB-Patriots era. We not only seem to have a different read on the signs, we apparently have a different take on what's meant by business as usual, "fine approach" and "apparent reality".
