DL was supposed to take a big step back this year, and it didn't. I don't know what Elko's plan is, but he had a good OL year 1, a great OL year 2...if our "step back" is equal to year 1, we will be in position to win a lot of games.

9 or 10 wins will be typical, with 11+ wins being special. Elko is also developing what we already have here.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

In the past it's been tough to portal in offensive lineman. We have one really successful portal in (Reed Adams) and one somewhat successful (Faaiu)...

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

Also roadies at Bama, OU, LSU, Mizzou, SC and Arizona State.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

Take a look at the 2026 road schedule. It'll be tough. Maybe Elko works some portal magic again, but next year's schedule is tough.

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

When we're bad: "We'll be good next year."

When we're good: "We'll be bad next year."

Amazing.

Oline was pretty good last year and wasn't the problem. Next year won't be as good as this year but I wouldn't expect it to be awful either.

TxAg76 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

Y'all all predicted 8-4 this year. I'll wait to see what Elko does in the portal before I start banging all the pots.

---

Some did, yeah. I didn't. I felt like we'd have a really good year with playoff potential if the DLine could hold up, given the returning starters elsewhere (particularly OLine) and the portal supplements.

But I don't feel the same about next year, particularly because of what we'll lose on both sides of the ball, especially in the trenches, both sides.

---

Times they are a changin... Ohio State, Bama, and Oregon all had transfer starters play on the O-line this year. It is not like it used to be when Saban would sit on 4/5 studs for 3 years and roll them out without flinching.

Hopefully we can portal a hoss or two. Time will tell, of course. I'm as exited for next year as I was for this one!

We are Texas 11-1 until we are'nt dammit!

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Those certain schools at this point are basically just OSU and Georgia. No one else is immune in this era of two major conferences and the transfer portal even Bama. Maybe you could throw in ND, but they play a much different kind of schedule. Perhaps Oregon, but no one else in the SEC.

Texas was basically in the exact same position with it's OL this year that we'll be in next year. Seven teams that made the playoffs last year aren't going to make it a second time.

There's hope: Elko has been fantastic in the portal and we shouldn't discount that. But if he pulls off another playoff run with our schedule and the turnover we're facing, I think it's fair to say he's an elite coach. And if we go 9-3 next year, I don't think we should consider that a disaster.

This is dumb. The same thing was said about our defensive line this year. Let Elko & staff work. It will be fine.

JournoAG said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Those certain schools at this point are basically just OSU and Georgia. No one else is immune in this era of two major conferences and the transfer portal even Bama. Maybe you could throw in ND, but they play a much different kind of schedule. Perhaps Oregon, but no one else in the SEC.

Texas was basically in the exact same position with it's OL this year that we'll be in next year. Seven teams that made the playoffs last year aren't going to make it a second time.

There's hope: Elko has been fantastic in the portal and we shouldn't discount that. But if he pulls off another playoff run with our schedule and the turnover we're facing, I think it's fair to say he's an elite coach. And if we go 9-3 next year, I don't think we should consider that a disaster.

---

Yep

TxAg76 said:

---

JournoAG said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Those certain schools at this point are basically just OSU and Georgia. No one else is immune in this era of two major conferences and the transfer portal even Bama. Maybe you could throw in ND, but they play a much different kind of schedule. Perhaps Oregon, but no one else in the SEC.

Texas was basically in the exact same position with it's OL this year that we'll be in next year. Seven teams that made the playoffs last year aren't going to make it a second time.

There's hope: Elko has been fantastic in the portal and we shouldn't discount that. But if he pulls off another playoff run with our schedule and the turnover we're facing, I think it's fair to say he's an elite coach. And if we go 9-3 next year, I don't think we should consider that a disaster.

---

Yep

---

We could go 7-5. The schedule is brutal

11-1 - how many of you picked that?

So next year? Let it come and let's play the games.

How do some of you get out the door on a daily basis???

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Gee, I thought we were on the verge of winning 12+ games after our first playoff win. But, I'm not the average aggie fan. I guess we should have fired Elko last year for not winning the cfp while recovering from the Jimbo train wreck.

We thought this years schedule was going to be brutal. Other teams regress too. We just need to be in the top five to get to the playoffs. Next year will be Georgia, Bama, Ags, Sips, and one other of OU, Tenn, Lsu.

They do you just don't follow it as it's not your team. lsu played 2 FR OL vs us (one a RS I think).

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

I doubt they'll be any worse of a unit than this year. They haven't been a strength all year. We need to recruit this position better and the 2027 class is the one where we appear to finally be doing better. Hopefully we get some portal guys.

Quote:

---

We could go 7-5. The schedule is brutal

---

Our roster will be shedding 3-star transfers for high 4-stars and borderline 5-stars. Idk if I'd say the schedule is brutal next year but definitely harder.

2026 schedule adds 3 harder SEC games (at Ou, at Bama, vs Tennessee) and keeps LSU & Sips, but an easier out-of-conference game (Arizona St). It's a 9-game SEC schedule next year. A couple 9-3 teams out of the SEC will make the playoff, and we'd get in the playoff easy with a 9-3 record.

AggieDub04 said:

---

Oline was pretty good last year and wasn't the problem. Next year won't be as good as this year but I wouldn't expect it to be awful either.

---

OL was not good last year.

TXAGGIES said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

JournoAG said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Those certain schools at this point are basically just OSU and Georgia. No one else is immune in this era of two major conferences and the transfer portal even Bama. Maybe you could throw in ND, but they play a much different kind of schedule. Perhaps Oregon, but no one else in the SEC.

Texas was basically in the exact same position with it's OL this year that we'll be in next year. Seven teams that made the playoffs last year aren't going to make it a second time.

There's hope: Elko has been fantastic in the portal and we shouldn't discount that. But if he pulls off another playoff run with our schedule and the turnover we're facing, I think it's fair to say he's an elite coach. And if we go 9-3 next year, I don't think we should consider that a disaster.

---

Yep

---

We could go 7-5. The schedule is brutal

---

We certainly could. But it's also very possible that the schedule doesn't turn out to be as hard as it looks right now. Our 2025 schedule looked a lot harder than it was a year out. And I think there's a decent chance that a team or two has a much tougher year. OU is at the top of my list for that.

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

NoahAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

Take a look at the 2026 road schedule. It'll be tough. Maybe Elko works some portal magic again, but next year's schedule is tough.

---

We heard that exact same thing this year. Word for word. Easy to claim after the fact that it was easy, but every team we played except 2 was still in playoff contention and still had their coach.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

---

Neither do you.
But if you're convinced we'll be 10+ wins (or better) again based on this years results, and since anything less is simply unacceptable and sign of inferior coaching and poor program management....

I sure hope you're right, and i'll be very glad to be wrong.

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

---

Neither do you.
But if you're convinced we'll be 10+ wins (or better) again based on this years results, and since anything less is simply unacceptable and sign of inferior coaching and poor program management....

I sure hope you're right, and i'll be very glad to be wrong.

---

I didn't say any of that. I simply said you have no idea. But defaulting to doom is what this board did before this season. And as usual, this board was horribly wrong on everything. Best to not make determinations so early.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

---

Neither do you.
But if you're convinced we'll be 10+ wins (or better) again based on this years results, and since anything less is simply unacceptable and sign of inferior coaching and poor program management....

I sure hope you're right, and i'll be very glad to be wrong.

---

I didn't say any of that. I simply said you have no idea. But defaulting to doom is what this board did before this season. And as usual, this board was horribly wrong on everything. Best to not make determinations so early.

---

didn't realize 8-4 to 9-3 was doom, all things considered....but ok.
11-1 or better (again), here we go

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

---

Neither do you.
But if you're convinced we'll be 10+ wins (or better) again based on this years results, and since anything less is simply unacceptable and sign of inferior coaching and poor program management....

I sure hope you're right, and i'll be very glad to be wrong.

---

I didn't say any of that. I simply said you have no idea. But defaulting to doom is what this board did before this season. And as usual, this board was horribly wrong on everything. Best to not make determinations so early.

---

didn't realize 8-4 to 9-3 was doom, all things considered....but ok.
11-1 or better (again), here we go

---

You'd think 11-1 is doom around these parts.

Bill Superman said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You have no idea what next year's team is going to look like, much less the teams we are playing against.

---

Neither do you.
But if you're convinced we'll be 10+ wins (or better) again based on this years results, and since anything less is simply unacceptable and sign of inferior coaching and poor program management....

I sure hope you're right, and i'll be very glad to be wrong.

---

I didn't say any of that. I simply said you have no idea. But defaulting to doom is what this board did before this season. And as usual, this board was horribly wrong on everything. Best to not make determinations so early.

---

didn't realize 8-4 to 9-3 was doom, all things considered....but ok.
11-1 or better (again), here we go

---

You'd think 11-1 is doom around these parts.

---

Ha! Troof!

TXAGGIES said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

JournoAG said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Why do other teams seem to not have these problems all the time? Certain schools remain at the top for long stretches of time but once we have a good year then we are told to enjoy it because it will get worse again. Didn't we just pay Elko to compete and not have 7-8 win seasons?

---

Those certain schools at this point are basically just OSU and Georgia. No one else is immune in this era of two major conferences and the transfer portal even Bama. Maybe you could throw in ND, but they play a much different kind of schedule. Perhaps Oregon, but no one else in the SEC.

Texas was basically in the exact same position with it's OL this year that we'll be in next year. Seven teams that made the playoffs last year aren't going to make it a second time.

There's hope: Elko has been fantastic in the portal and we shouldn't discount that. But if he pulls off another playoff run with our schedule and the turnover we're facing, I think it's fair to say he's an elite coach. And if we go 9-3 next year, I don't think we should consider that a disaster.

---

Yep

---

We could go 7-5. The schedule is brutal

---

Because no one will say it turned out to be an EASY schedule when you are wrong.

Talon2DSO said:

---

EagleAg said:

---

Time to dig into the portal.

---

Even if you stacked the OL with seniors from other schools, it will be a regression. The only "fix" is time and experience as a unit. You can bring in a couple to fill in and sub out but the core unit needs to have same-day experiences together.

---

Ole Miss is also 11-1 and has 3 starters on their OL from the portal class last year. It's no where near as daunting of a task as so many are making it out to be. We don't even necessarily need 3. Get chase back and one legit portal starter with him, Nabou, rogers, bourdon, Ivy, can give you a solid 6-7 man rotation. If you can get 2 starting caliber guys, it may be a great OL again

Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, ole Miss, Texas tech, Oregon, all have 3 portal OL starting. All great offenses. And that was a search that took me 3-4 minutes. I bet I can find even more if I tried

TxAg76 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

I already answered that, just a few posts above yours.

And if you're thinking next year's team is going to be set up as well as this year's, you're either naive or just not looking at it realistically.

Don't get me wrong, i hope i'm dead wrong and we go undefeated to a Natty.
I just don't think that's realistic when you really look up and down the roster, and consider what's being lost after this season relative to what's backfilling it.

---

You may be right but it's way too premature. There's so much turnover for just about every team. Ole Miss portalled in 23 players and have about a dozen of them starting for them and are in the playoffs. 3 of which are starting OL.

Oregon, Texas tech, Tennessee, Arkansas(bad team great offense). Ole Miss, Alabama, all have 3 starting OL from the portal. And we don't even need 3. 3 would be a luxury. 2 would be great. 1 and keeping Bisontis would also be great.

Outside of OL, the turnover isn't any worse than it will be any year moving forward. Offensively, you may return 4 of your top 5 receivers. A RSR Theo at TE. Your starting qb. You need to replace the OL. Concepcion hurts but again, 4/5 receivers helps. Obvious Moss, but unfortunately we are already used to playing without him. We will have a ton of experience in our skill guys.

Defensively?. I know we lose Howell, Regis, Onyedim, Chappell, scooby, and Lee, but I actually think there's a decent chance we are better defensively. But we do need to hit on a few defensive portal players along with develop guys like jones, Mikhail, Rink, Evans, Shaw, etc, and keep ricks/hicks on campus. It's not impossible to improve there by any means. Fwiw , most defensive efficiency metrics have us in the 15-20 range, so it isn't like we are a top 3 unit right now that will be hard to replace

NoahAg said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

No idea, but they'll be young and green.
And a key reason why we'll see some regression and be in the 8-4 to 9-3 range next year.

---

We were supposed to be 8-4 this year. How'd that work out?

---

Take a look at the 2026 road schedule. It'll be tough. Maybe Elko works some portal magic again, but next year's schedule is tough.

---

People said that about this year. Replacing ND on the road with Arizona st at home helps a ton. Even with a harder sec schedule, that offset helps.

Every sec schedule moving forward will be tough with 9 games. Stop focusing on that and just take it one game at a time. All that matters is how well we set up our team and the rest falls into place.

" I think Elko's extension went wayyyyyy beyond just this years wins/losses in a vacuum.
They're seemingly running a good and tight program, and seemingly structured well to navigate the fine lines between recruiting, portal, and NIL.
Building a legit program in a way that has a chance to sustain success, longer term."

Elko stayed at Texas A&M for less than Pedo State offered. Texas A&M agreed to some sustainability measures that Elko asked for. If Elko had told his Agent to market him he would have been the most in demand Coach in the marketplace.

Is there actually anyone on this forum that did not want to keep Elko?

Ag1188 said:

---

AggieDub04 said:

---

Oline was pretty good last year and wasn't the problem. Next year won't be as good as this year but I wouldn't expect it to be awful either.

---

OL was not good last year.

---

Yes, it was. It was outmatched by 3 elite DLs in Texas, South Carolina, and notre dame, but in general, they won the battle in 9/12 games. They absolutely graded out overall as a solid unit. Not great though

Maroon Flash said:

---

" I think Elko's extension went wayyyyyy beyond just this years wins/losses in a vacuum.
They're seemingly running a good and tight program, and seemingly structured well to navigate the fine lines between recruiting, portal, and NIL.
Building a legit program in a way that has a chance to sustain success, longer term."

Elko stayed at Texas A&M for less than Pedo State offered. Texas A&M agreed to some sustainability measures that Elko asked for. If Elko had told his Agent to market him he would have been the most in demand Coach in the marketplace.

Is there actually anyone on this forum that did not want to keep Elko?

---

I think everyone wanted to keep him, sure.
I think you have a boatload of people who are questioning the extension and raise though.
I don't mind it, but there's a ton that do.

Ag1188 said:

---

AggieDub04 said:

---

Oline was pretty good last year and wasn't the problem. Next year won't be as good as this year but I wouldn't expect it to be awful either.

---

OL was not good last year.

---

A&M was 4th in the SEC in sacks allowed per game at 1.77 and 4th in the SEC in yards per rush at 4.83. No team was better than A&M in both categories. The 2024 OL was pretty good.