KEY POINTS:
There was a touch of 'she'll be all right' from the New Zealand Rugby Union last year.
There they were, haemorrhaging players - good ones - on an unprecedented scale and they never wavered from their belief the exodus was merely creating opportunities for the next generation.
Some of that confidence will have disappeared as the impact of losing Luke McAlister, Aaron Mauger and Sam Tuitupou starts to be realised.
Not even New Zealand's talent pool can cover losses of such magnitude. Last year it was a case of which second five to leave out. This year it is a question of who on earth to put in.
Given time, Stephen Brett and Benson Stanley will become test class.
Brett is a ferocious talent, blessed with a smart kicking game, decision-making temperament and quick feet. He's a game-breaker, capable of opening a defence and setting free the outside runners.
There is some concern about his defence, particularly when the All Blacks revert to the old rules, but really his biggest flaw is he has been around for all of five minutes.
The same goes for Stanley, an impressive young man who stands out from his peer group after choosing to put rugby on hold to obtain academic qualifications.
As Blues backs coach Greg Cooper said of Stanley last week: "He makes a lot of good decisions. It's a pretty good sign that he was doing his job and doing it well when the backline was a bit lateral."
Rugby is in Stanley's genes and what impresses most is that he uses his head. There's no sense of him feeling pressure in what is a big decision-making role and much of his execution, including his kicking, has been good enough to have some wondering if he will follow his uncle Joe into the All Black midfield.
The answer is yes he probably will, but the end of year tour, where 32 will travel, would be a better entry point. That would give him another provincial campaign to build a database of how things work in grown-up battles.
The temptation will certainly be for the selectors to say 'stuff it' and throw Brett, and possibly Stanley, into the 26-man mix to play Ireland and England in June.
Ireland aren't up to much and England would love to be up to something - it's just they don't have the first idea how to go about it.
And the selectors will also be aware that Daniel Carter showed in 2003 that time at the coalface is not always paramount. He started six NPC games in 2002, split between 10 and 12 and then played a full Super 12 campaign in 2003.
In June he waltzed through his test debut against Wales and by the following November, at just 22 after only two Super campaigns, he was justifiably considered by many to be the best first five in world rugby.
There would, however, be a danger in believing Carter's path to the test arena could be followed by others. The Crusaders five-eighth is a once-in-a-lifetime talent. It could be another 30 years before someone so rounded comes along.
Mere mortals like Stanley and Brett can't be expected to handle test football as seamlessly as Carter. They have more obvious flaws that could be ruthlessly exposed by gnarled campaigners like Brian O'Driscoll, Stirling Mortlock and Jean de Villiers. Better to give them time in a more forgiving environment to learn their craft.
But that doesn't solve Henry's problems in the short term. Someone has to wear the No 12 jersey and come the Tri Nations there can't be any experimental faffing around.
One option would be to play Nick Evans at first five and shift Carter to second five. It's an option we are not likely to see, though.
The selectors know what they have in Carter and don't want to go tampering with the golden goose. Evans will see a bit of game time at No 10 off the bench and will probably start at least one game of the extended Tri Nations programme.
But, as a long-term solution, switching Carter to No 12 is not on the cards. So what do they do?
Henry dropped a big hint during the week. Asked if he felt there was a problem brewing at second five he said: "I think there are a number of players who can play there. I don't think the problem is as great as lock.
"There are a number of guys in the midfield who can play either 12 or 13 so that shouldn't be as great a challenge as the lock forward challenge."
The selectors have been keen on Richard Kahui for a while and he's the type of player they feel could become equally comfortable at 12 as 13, in the same way Tana Umaga was.
The 22-year-old has the physical presence and strength to threaten any defence. He's quick enough to exploit the outside channels from centre and like Umaga, he can work his hands free in the tackle and become a threat at second five-eighths by running straight and off-loading out of contact.
And, boy, can he tackle. His timing, technique and aggression are all bang on.
Conrad Smith is another tempting conversion prospect. Centre is increasingly becoming the domain of the high-impact types; powerful units like Mortlock who are 100kg-plus and don't mess around much.
Smith is more about guile. He plays with his head up, keeps the ball in front and looks to use it. He looks a bit like John Leslie and plays like him too. Second five could be his longer-term future.
Some thought will be given to using Isaia Toeava there on the grounds he is such a talent he could pick it up in no time.
It would be more compelling to say he would be better employed in the centre, a position where he's made some but not enough headway.
Then there is of course Ma'a Nonu - the most infuriating player in New Zealand. In November 2006 the All Black coaches played Nonu at second five in the second test against France in Paris.
That was the game they said they had targeted to play their strongest XV. By June 2007, Nonu wasn't even in the 30-man squad.
Was it a sign Henry and co had washed their hands of Nonu? Decided that for all their efforts Nonu was never going to get certain basics nailed down. If they had given up on him, they will have to reconsider. The depth just isn't there to write players off and there is a growing uneasiness that 'she'll not be so right.'
