I have noted this elsewhere on the interwebs before, and a lot of has been written about it...
The coaching emphasis really hasn't changed over the years. Focusing on sectional responsibilities. Where from my perspective where coaches (myself included) have gotten into the weeds a bit over the years in regards to option defense is how much your scheme for stopping option deviates from your normal scheme. In recent years I have chosen to simplify my approach and stay within my already existent scheme.
Here is the most basic element to understand: Most schemes don't natively align to option and especially wing option/veer very well. Most coaches, as do I, prefer an even front. That isn't to say that running odd fronts don't work but rather I just prefer 40 personnel because of philosophy.
Anyhow playing within your normal defensive philosophy affords you the ability to play faster and give players as close to normal in game reads and from the positions and angles you normally might. If you don't ask your DE's to be box ends normally, don't ask them to be them against option. If your safety normally plays from depth and has alley support, keep it that way. You can ask players to work on techniques to help against certain elements (such as wrong-arming, double team defense, hi-lo tandem stuff) but I just think you don't change your players eyes or mind.
THe only thing you end up changing is coverage concepts because of alignment, but again I am a strong believer you run a coverage concept that you'd normally run and the CB's and Safetys are comfortable make run/pass read diagnosis from.
This scheme has the type of responsibility redundancy to make it successful at the second level. The 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 allows overlapping support outside in, inside out, as well as level to level so that you wouldn't have to change much alignment wise to stay within your scheme.
You are going to give up yards. Deal. Sort of like death and taxes.