If you're willing to lock the depositors up for 10 years and pay them back when those assets mature, sure. But that probably wouldn't be seen as an acceptable way of making those depositors whole.
Someone's got $100 of deposits with you today; you're holding a 10-year bond that will pay $102 over the 10 years but currently trades at $87. Yes you "can" "pay" "them" "back" eventually, but what if they want to pull their deposit today, perhaps to buy a bond like the one you were holding? If you do the accounting based on today, they're entitled to $100 and you only have $87; if you do the accounting based on 10 years' time, they're entitled to $115 and you only have $102; either way there's a shortfall.
Investing involves risk. Sometimes that means losing money, even if you are the bank.
The reason a $100 par bond paying 2% sells for (I don't know, say) $87 when interest rates are (I don't know, say) 5% isn't that the original bond is impaired. It's that the same $100 buys you a bond that pays 3% better, so nobody will buy the bond without a discount.
But the bank doesn't normally sell the bond to begin with. That's why people say banks "borrow short and lend long". What the bank is supposed to do is hold the bond until it matures and is paid back in full. The only reason SVB can't do that is that all its depositors simultaneously demanded their money bank, so it couldn't wait the bonds out. But other institutions can do that waiting.
It will be a loss for the bank, but that seems better than total collapse. Banks are ultimately companies that take calculated risk to make money, if you can't afford to take an occasional loss then you shouldn't be in a risk based business.
