While I certainly think that 4-2-5 defense has basically become the base scheme throughout all FB (and is especially the specialty of Elko), I don't understand why it's such a boom or bust run defense. It seems like it shouldn't be that hard to get LBs that will attack the LOS along with the rover safety. I believe that a lot of it is on our LBs this year, but even with good LBs, Elko hasn't shown that we're consistently going to produce. Like if our DL doesn't get a TFL, it's basically a 5-10 yd gain minimum.

Can any experts on here explain what the heck is going on?

The truth is that there isn't a lot of elite talent on his defense yet. Most of them are older 3 star guys that play well together. Some of the 1st and 2nd year guys may end up being better, but they've hardly played up to this point. You need the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Shoring up the DT position, along with finding an Antonio Johnson type player to man the Nickel spot would go a long way towards consistently stopping the run. Elko also needs to massively upgrade at Safety, which is the position he puts a ton of responsibility on. He's doing a good job at bringing in a lot of speed in the high school classes and I bet the defense will improve over the next 2 years as more of the younger, faster players start playing and getting experience.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

The truth is that there isn't a lot of elite talent on his defense yet. Most of them are older 3 star guys that play well together. Some of the 1st and 2nd year guys may end up being better, but they've hardly played up to this point. You need the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

---

I agree with this. When you have superstars on the DL and LB, you can get away with being imperfect from an execution perspective because they can blow plays up on pure athleticism. But we depend on really solid schematic execution to play good team defense.

I found this analysis from Kellen Mond to be a good example. If one guy screws up, you can get gashed.

For any A&M football fans wondering when it started to go downhill, here is the play. This tu drive ended in a FG, but started the momentum.

Their first play of the 3rd Q. A play your CB should be making the tackle at the LOS, but when one person doesn’t do their job, the whole… https://t.co/FapWTEX49x

— K M o n d (@TheKellenMond) November 29, 2025

Solid review by Mond.

Likely remembers how the group around Sully maintained solid gap integrity too

Yet, according to Mond, #4, a CB, was responsible for the breakdown on the long run shown and described as the turning point. Initially had all gaps covered but, because the CB didn't make the tackle in the backfield (he was unblocked) the RB was able to take the time to pull the DT away from his gap and cut back into the one that was vacated. The sip backs have been good at this for a few years. It requires patience and presumes the OL is good enough to maintain a stalemate at the LOS until someone commits too far to the wrong gap allowing a jump cut into the uncovered one. Our back in 2012 (from cedar hill but name escapes me) was a master at this.

What about Indiana?

I'll add that I'm just spitballing. We didn't run anything sophisticated at my high school because nearly everyone played both ways. So, on defense, we read our key at the snap then pursued the ball. I once had a scouting report that described the action on a certain play as "whip block, make play".

Ben Malena

Enviroag02 said:

---

Ben Malena

---

Yes. Outstanding back for our offense.

In a the base 4-2-5 arent you swapping a player in the box (3-4 or 4-3) to a smaller safety type? This is effectively requires better fits and discipline, because if you don't the offense is breaking into the next level which will be smaller / less physical and not necessarily focused on run defense?

Ran a 5-2 back in the old heavy running offense days, we would swap personal to 4-2-5 when playing heavier pass offenses... but it never worked well.

This is what Sumlin/Chavis recruited Justin Dunning for. A 6' 3", 235 lb dude that could cover like a FS, but big/physical enough to man a OLB spot. Would've worked if his knee joints weren't made of glass. Dude could've been a difference maker.

Sterling82 said:

---

Yet, according to Mond, #4, a CB, was responsible for the breakdown on the long run shown and described as the turning point. Initially had all gaps covered but, because the CB didn't make the tackle in the backfield (he was unblocked) the RB was able to take the time.....

---

That is NOT Mond's take! He said the CB was in the roght place and would have made the tackle at LOS if #11 stayed home.

He did say yes, he could have been a little more aggressive, but he was in the right position.

Thanks. Kelken!

gaudiz said:

---

What about Indiana?

---

Indiana and Georgia are the most physical teams in the Playoff.

Why was our LB (27) running North and South and not staying home, working east and west as the 2nd line of defense?

When opposing team's RB's get through our d-line, they get through our LB's and corners with very little resistance. Our safeties are making tackles the LB's should be making.

Based off what Mond suggests and what I'm hearing y'all say, I think it may be as a lack of gap integrity and attacking the line of scrimmage, which don't sound like scheme but rather player discipline and would be fixable. Am I right or am I missing something here?

The major issue with our defense is it requires everyone to be perfect nearly every play. There is zero room for a misalignment or mistake.

Fishwrangler11 said:

---

Based off what Mond suggests and what I'm hearing y'all say, I think it may be as a lack of gap integrity and attacking the line of scrimmage, which don't sound like scheme but rather player discipline and would be fixable. Am I right or am I missing something here?

---

was it addressed at all in what you saw? With your eyes? Or are you crapping on the team for an 11-1 year?

Fishwrangler11 said:

---

Based off what Mond suggests and what I'm hearing y'all say, I think it may be as a lack of gap integrity and attacking the line of scrimmage, which don't sound like scheme but rather player discipline and would be fixable. Am I right or am I missing something here?

---

You are correct. It is fixable.

Off_The_Wood said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

The truth is that there isn't a lot of elite talent on his defense yet. Most of them are older 3 star guys that play well together. Some of the 1st and 2nd year guys may end up being better, but they've hardly played up to this point. You need the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

---

I agree with this. When you have superstars on the DL and LB, you can get away with being imperfect from an execution perspective because they can blow plays up on pure athleticism. But we depend on really solid schematic execution to play good team defense.

I found this analysis from Kellen Mond to be a good example. If one guy screws up, you can get gashed.

For any A&M football fans wondering when it started to go downhill, here is the play. This tu drive ended in a FG, but started the momentum.

Their first play of the 3rd Q. A play your CB should be making the tackle at the LOS, but when one person doesn’t do their job, the whole… https://t.co/FapWTEX49x

— K M o n d (@TheKellenMond) November 29, 2025

---

that tweet reads like it is straight out of chatgpt

Divining Rod said:

---

Sterling82 said:

---

Yet, according to Mond, #4, a CB, was responsible for the breakdown on the long run shown and described as the turning point. Initially had all gaps covered but, because the CB didn't make the tackle in the backfield (he was unblocked) the RB was able to take the time.....

---

That is NOT Mond's take! He said the CB was in the roght place and would have made the tackle at LOS if #11 stayed home.

He did say yes, he could have been a little more aggressive, but he was in the right position.

Thanks. Kelken!

---

I agree - it was Onyedim (#11) that should have stayed in his gap and forced the play to the unblocked Lee. Not exactly sure what Sanford was doing either.

Off_The_Wood said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

The truth is that there isn't a lot of elite talent on his defense yet. Most of them are older 3 star guys that play well together. Some of the 1st and 2nd year guys may end up being better, but they've hardly played up to this point. You need the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

---

I agree with this. When you have superstars on the DL and LB, you can get away with being imperfect from an execution perspective because they can blow plays up on pure athleticism. But we depend on really solid schematic execution to play good team defense.

I found this analysis from Kellen Mond to be a good example. If one guy screws up, you can get gashed.

For any A&M football fans wondering when it started to go downhill, here is the play. This tu drive ended in a FG, but started the momentum.

Their first play of the 3rd Q. A play your CB should be making the tackle at the LOS, but when one person doesn’t do their job, the whole… https://t.co/FapWTEX49x

— K M o n d (@TheKellenMond) November 29, 2025

---

.
This breakdown perfectly encapsulates what I've been saying about Onyedim since the UTSA game, and overall about the front six/seven.

1. Onyedim doesn't win with strength, he wins with leverage (appears to have long arms) and quickness (elite DT quicks). He is very disruptive, but he's also played a disproportionate role in A&M's inability to prevent explosive runs. He guesses a lot. He's probably a specialist pass rusher or a more natural strong side end.

2. Onyedim is a very good asset, overall (he'll play in the NFL), but the fact he's not a situational 3rd DT/interior rusher or strong side DE speaks to a lack of strength and heft in the playable DL depth. This lack of heft and play strength then badly exposes undersized LBers and SEC average/below average athletes at safety.

This play, in multiple forms, has happened all year. The defense has been mostly good because of scheme and discipline, NOT dudes. When either scheme of discipline fails, they don't have the physical traits to make up for it, at least relative to their positions.

That's why it was so maddening when Elko went into a second half shell against Texas. This defense MUST play unconventional, chaotic, unpredictable, AND disciplined or upper tier SEC rosters will out dude them.

If one LB gets walled off in the 4-2, the remaining LB has to fill more than one gap. 4-2-5 is a pass defense. You better have a hard nosed nickel to roll down.

MagnumLoad said:

---

If one LB gets walled off in the 4-2, the remaining LB has to fill more than one gap. 4-2-5 is a pass defense. You better have a hard nosed nickel to roll down.

---

Thats what 4 is doing right here. He makes this a 4-3 look. The last second gap exchange caused the issue. Not sure who is to blame but it sure looks like 11 here.

Fishwrangler11 said:

---

While I certainly think that 4-2-5 defense has basically become the base scheme throughout all FB (and is especially the specialty of Elko), I don't understand why it's such a boom or bust run defense. It seems like it shouldn't be that hard to get LBs that will attack the LOS along with the rover safety. I believe that a lot of it is on our LBs this year, but even with good LBs, Elko hasn't shown that we're consistently going to produce. Like if our DL doesn't get a TFL, it's basically a 5-10 yd gain minimum.

Can any experts on here explain what the heck is going on?

---

We ran 4-2-5 in HS. To me its good against the option an running QB's and give better matchups vs TE's in the passing game. I personally played every position in the secondary. So I'm very familiar. Gives more options for Safety/hybrid LB blitzes. Its more popular now than ever because the pro style offense is not as popular and the spread is much more popular.

Its weak against the run sometimes. You have to switch in and out of it situationally IMO.

We teach our backers to have a playside gap and a flow away gap. Georgia teachers their backers to two gap and play slow on playside runs. The backer fits off the d line. If your dline is dominant your backer will simply clean up. We get more tfl on playside runs but also give up more long runs on bad fits.

Off_The_Wood said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

The truth is that there isn't a lot of elite talent on his defense yet. Most of them are older 3 star guys that play well together. Some of the 1st and 2nd year guys may end up being better, but they've hardly played up to this point. You need the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

---

I agree with this. When you have superstars on the DL and LB, you can get away with being imperfect from an execution perspective because they can blow plays up on pure athleticism. But we depend on really solid schematic execution to play good team defense.

I found this analysis from Kellen Mond to be a good example. If one guy screws up, you can get gashed.

For any A&M football fans wondering when it started to go downhill, here is the play. This tu drive ended in a FG, but started the momentum.

Their first play of the 3rd Q. A play your CB should be making the tackle at the LOS, but when one person doesn’t do their job, the whole… https://t.co/FapWTEX49x

— K M o n d (@TheKellenMond) November 29, 2025

---

Yeah, well I misread it. But, while technically it may be that #11 didn't carry out his assignment perfectly, it's possible he was blocked out of his assigned gap also. Same as Sanford, he was in the right gap but was moved out of it. Like I said, I never played this scheme in the dark ages but there's a point in the play where somebody is getting off a block and tackling the ball carrier. In my view, 11 was at least making that effort (sort of like going around a block to make a TFL which happens all the time. But if you miss doing that you're exposed). Meanwhile #4 had a clean shot in the backfield but stood in his gap as the RB ran for 50. I wouldn't be surprised if this, or a situation like it, didn't prompt Elko's comment that we may be asking people to do more than they're capable. #4 isn't really a LOS player. Maybe we should be bringing a safety down and rolling the CB back into coverage there. In short, if running a defense was as simple as just getting gaps filled, everyone would have a great defense and I kind of get tired of it always being an issue with "fits". Because the overarching problem is that mistakes up front don't result in an 8 yard gain but an explosive plays.

Point being, and i've said this for years, that the hardest route to defend is a come-back when the CB's back is turned.

Almost every CB will have his back turned at some point when you are running a vertical route in man coverage.

When the receiver stops and comes back, he will almost ALWAYS have a huge advantage on the defender.

It's time we start using this a bit more.