Maybe.
What I do know is that for several years running, in a league that has focused on enabling the QB, the winner of the SB has always had a strong group of corners.
That includes Denver, New England, and Us. 3 might not be a trend, but it is close.
Should also point out that the lack of effective secondary was one the key things that kept Carolina from effectively competing, it was filling in that missing piece that helped get them over the hump. Other than that, they were pretty close to the same team. (Strong DL, strong LB, athletic QB prone to get too high/low and to take dumb risks - along with almost no WRs and a good run game - but you could pass on them if you could keep the line off you).
It could also be argued that the lack of secondary for half the year put us behind in getting to the playoffs. So it makes no sense to dismiss the importance of keeping good secondary performers we know are capable in the hope that someone who rarely sees the field can somehow replace them.
Corners cost $. And unless we are getting Nkemdiche, we aren't going to get much help on the line anyway. Now if getting rid of Lane helps us keep Irvin? Then that is a harder decision, not even sure you make that decision but it becomes harder for sure. I would sacrifice goats on a rooftop to keep Irvin, but I am not sure I would sacrifice one of our few effective corners after a year without corners on one side nearly cost us even GETTING to the playoffs.
(I hate you Cary Williams)
But if you have a plan to win a SB, you had better have a strong secondary and right now thinning our secondary seems counterproductive as a plan to win another one.