Five LSU Players Mississippi State Fans Need to Know Ahead Of Saturday

STARKVILLE — Mississippi State’s preparation for LSU cannot begin and end with the quarterback. Sam Leavitt is central to the Tigers’ offense, but the players around him help determine how many answers LSU has when a defense removes its first choice.

On the other side, the Bulldogs must account for a pass rusher whose background includes productive work against SEC competition.

LSU enters Saturday’s matchup at 4-2 after a 35-34 overtime loss at Kentucky. Mississippi State arrives at 4-1 following its open date. The Tigers’ latest game exposed vulnerabilities, but it also demonstrated the personnel the Bulldogs must contain if they want to turn those vulnerabilities into a road victory.

These five players provide a useful starting point for understanding the matchup. Their production explains why Mississippi State’s assignment extends beyond reacting to one star. The Bulldogs need to recognize how LSU’s threats work together, then prevent the offense and defense from creating comfortable situations for their most productive players.

Tigers Quarterback Sam Leavitt 10 hands off to Dilin Jones 13, LSU Tigers take on the LA Tech Bulldogs. September 12, 2026; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA; at Tiger Stadium. | USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Sam Leavitt and Dilin Jones Give LSU Multiple Backfield Answers

Leavitt is the first player Mississippi State fans need to know because he influences the game through both passing and rushing. Entering the matchup, ESPN’s preview lists him with 1,495 passing yards, 10 touchdown passes, eight interceptions and a 67.6 percent completion rate. Against Kentucky, he completed 25 of 34 passes for 275 yards and two touchdowns, then added 39 rushing yards and another score.

Those numbers describe a productive quarterback with a meaningful vulnerability. The interceptions deserve attention, but they should not replace an evaluation of the rest of his performance. Leavitt can make a costly mistake and still generate enough offense to keep LSU competitive. Mississippi State needs to create difficult decisions repeatedly rather than assume one takeaway will settle the matchup.

His rushing involvement also changes the defensive assignment. Covering the receivers does not automatically finish the play, and accounting for the running back does not eliminate the backfield threat. State must maintain responsibility through the conclusion of a snap rather than treating its first successful defensive action as the end of the work.

Jones is the second player because his value extends beyond conventional carries. ESPN’s matchup preview lists him with 483 rushing yards on 110 attempts and five rushing touchdowns. His Kentucky performance was particularly revealing: 16 carries for 56 yards, accompanied by seven receptions for 84 yards.

The receiving production is why Mississippi State cannot evaluate Jones only as a runner. He gave LSU meaningful yardage in a game where his rushing average was modest. A defense that limits his carries but repeatedly loses him as a receiving option has solved only part of the problem.

For Bulldogs fans, Jones supplies a useful viewing cue. Watch what happens after LSU’s initial backfield action. If State remains disciplined and finishes its tackling opportunities, it can make his contribution more difficult. If attention shifts elsewhere and he repeatedly becomes an accessible target, LSU gains another way to sustain possessions without requiring a long completion.

Winston Watkins Jr 6, The LSU Tigers take on the McNeese Cowboys. October 3, 2026; Baton Rouge, LA, USA; at Tiger Stadium. | USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Watkins, Harris Present Different Receiving Problems

Winnie Watkins is the third player because his production gives LSU a receiving option Mississippi State must consistently account for. ESPN lists him with 29 receptions for 416 yards and two touchdowns entering the matchup. He caught six passes for 62 yards against Kentucky, contributing through repeated completions rather than one isolated scoring moment.

That distinction matters. A defense can prevent a receiver’s longest gain and still allow him to influence the game by extending possessions.

Watkins’ reception total makes him relevant to the discussion of how LSU stays on the field, not simply how it creates highlights. Restricting the passing game requires attention to both outcomes.

The available statistics do not establish whether Mississippi State will use a particular defender, additional coverage attention or another arrangement against him.

They establish that LSU has repeatedly found productive ways to involve him. The Bulldogs need to make those opportunities less comfortable without creating an easier answer elsewhere.

Harris is the fourth player, and his latest performance adds another dimension to the receiving discussion. The Athletic’s matchup page lists him with 21 receptions for 371 yards and three receiving touchdowns.

Kentucky also had to account for something outside his normal receiving role: Harris threw a touchdown pass to Roman Mothershed after taking a lateral from Leavitt.

That play does not mean Mississippi State should expect a receiver pass every time Harris becomes involved. It means LSU has demonstrated a willingness to use his participation to manipulate defensive reactions.

The Bulldogs cannot abandon responsibility simply because the ball initially appears headed toward a familiar type of receiver touch.

The larger lesson is about recognition. Watkins’ production demands consistent coverage execution. Harris’ involvement requires awareness of conventional receiving work and the possibility that a play could develop differently from its initial appearance.

LSU does not need every receiver to perform the same job to create problems.

Umanmielen Makes Protection a Central Question

Princewill Umanmielen is the fifth player because Mississippi State must account for a defender capable of making its quarterback’s assignment more difficult. LSU’s official biography identifies him as a January 2026 transfer addition following a productive season at Ole Miss, giving the Tigers a player with established experience in the conference.

In 2025, Umanmielen recorded nine sacks and 13 tackles for loss. LSU’s biography lists him third in the SEC in sacks and eighth in tackles for loss that season. He also earned third-team All-SEC recognition from the league’s coaches. Those are documented credentials against conference competition, not simply a reputation built on recruiting attention.

His significance to Mississippi State is practical. Pressure can affect a possession without ending in a sack. It can shorten the time available for a throw, force a quarterback away from the intended structure or turn a manageable situation into a difficult one. The Bulldogs need to evaluate protection without assuming their passer will repeatedly solve those problems alone.

That responsibility remains regardless of which quarterback plays. A workable offense needs useful early-down production, dependable execution and a plan for disruptive defenders. Umanmielen’s presence makes the relationship between those elements important. Protection cannot be separated entirely from the situations the offense creates before an obvious passing down.

These five players explain why LSU remains dangerous after its Kentucky loss.

Mississippi State’s opportunity depends on limiting those contributions collectively—not winning one recognizable matchup while allowing the others to dictate the game.

Sign up to our free Mississippi State on SI newsletter for daily updates on all things Bulldogs.

Add us as a preferred source on Google