Five Mississippi State Players With the Most to Prove at LSU

Bulldogs need more than a quarterback update, Saturday will test the players responsible for giving the offense balance, defense a steadier performance

Mississippi State Wide Receiver Anthony Evans III (#3) during the game between the Missouri Tigers and the Mississippi State Bulldogs at Faurot Field at Memorial Stadium Stadium in Columbia, MO. | Mississippi State Athletics

STARKVILLE — Those with the “most to prove” should not mean most deserving of blame. Mississippi State’s trip to LSU presents several important individual assignments, but football does not distribute responsibility neatly enough for one player to explain a team result.

The Bulldogs enter Saturday after an open date and a 56-23 loss to Alabama. Quarterback Kamario Taylor and running back Fluff Bothwell were listed as questionable on the initial SEC availability report.

That uncertainty changes how the offense may operate, but it does not remove the responsibilities of the players around them.

Mississippi State Bulldogs coach Jeff Lebby against the Arkansas Razorbacks at Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville, Ark. | Nilsen Roman-DawgsonSI Images

These five selections focus on football assignments that remain meaningful regardless of the final backfield decision. None is being asked to prove that he can play through an injury. The standard is execution within the role actually available Saturday, not a public test of toughness or a demand that someone overcome circumstances outside his control.

Kolin Wilson, Anthony Evans III Must Supply Different Kinds of Support

Wilson is the first player because Mississippi State needs more useful production from its available rushing options. Against Alabama, he finished with 27 yards on 10 carries. That line does not identify the cause of every unsuccessful attempt, but it establishes that his touches did not generate enough yardage to give the offense a dependable ground component.

Bothwell’s uncertain status makes the broader running-back situation more consequential. It does not confirm Wilson’s workload or promise that he will receive a particular number of carries. If his opportunities come, the challenge is turning them into useful offensive situations rather than leaving the quarterback responsible for recovering the possession.

Wilson cannot accomplish that alone. Blocking, defensive alignment and play selection influence the result. His individual standard should therefore be evaluated through the opportunities actually created, not simply through a rushing target chosen before kickoff. State needs productive contributions, wherever the distribution of carries eventually leads.

Evans is the second player, although his Alabama performance requires a different interpretation. He caught 12 passes for 166 yards and two touchdowns. He does not need to prove that the production occurred or apologize for it arriving in a defeat.

His LSU assignment is about repeatability and value within a potentially changing offense. Can he remain a productive target when circumstances differ? Can he help possessions continue even if the quarterback or route to the ball changes? Another large receiving total would be welcome, but his usefulness should not be judged only against his best statistical afternoon.

Together, Wilson and Evans illustrate two kinds of offensive responsibility. One must help establish a more credible alternative. The other must help preserve an existing strength without becoming the entire solution.

Billy Puckett’s Assignment Depends on Opportunity

Puckett is the third player, with an essential qualification: his opportunity is not guaranteed. Lebby has discussed both Puckett and AJ Swann as alternatives if Taylor cannot play, and the depth chart has listed them as co-backups.

Puckett replacing Taylor late against Alabama does not independently settle Saturday’s decision.

If Puckett receives meaningful snaps, the task is operating the offense rather than attempting to reproduce Taylor’s identity. Those are different assignments.

A quarterback needs to execute the available plan, protect possessions and make useful decisions within the circumstances he actually encounters.

The coaching staff shares that responsibility. A backup placed repeatedly in difficult passing situations is facing a different examination from one supported by manageable distances and complementary production.

Evaluating Puckett fairly would require acknowledging that difference without excusing an identifiable mistake.

If he does not play, there is no meaningful individual verdict to deliver. That boundary belongs in a serious preview. “Most to prove” cannot become permission to grade a hypothetical performance or imply that a player failed because he never received the opportunity.

The larger point remains relevant to the entire quarterback room. Mississippi State needs preparedness beyond its starter. Saturday may or may not make that depth visible, but the staff has publicly acknowledged the need to prepare more than one option.

Jett Jefferson, Kelley Jones Must Help Finish Defensive Possessions

Jefferson and Jones are the fourth and fifth players because their best recent statistical contributions provide a useful standard to examine. Mississippi State’s Missouri notes credited Jefferson with five pass breakups and Jones with four as part of a 15-breakup team performance.

Those plays mattered in a 31-24 victory, particularly with Missouri held scoreless in the fourth quarter. They did not mean the passing defense had become a finished product. Missouri still generated substantial receiving production, and Alabama subsequently presented a much more efficient passing attack.

Mississippi State Live Mascot Bully XXII during the game between the Tennessee Volunteers and the Mississippi State Bulldogs at Davis Wade Stadium at Scott Field in Starkville, MS. | Mississippi State Athletics

LSU asks another version of the coverage question. Leavitt can produce through conventional throws, while players such as Dilin Jones contribute outside the most obvious receiver matchups. Mississippi State’s defensive backs must perform their own responsibilities without assuming that one covered target ends the play.

Neither Jefferson nor Kelley Jones should be assigned personal blame for every completion near him. Coverage responsibilities, pressure and other defenders influence the result. The available evidence must establish an assignment before criticism becomes specific.

The observable standard is nevertheless demanding: compete at the catch point, finish available tackles and contribute to possessions that end before LSU scores. A breakup is valuable. A complete defensive series is more valuable still.

These five players do not carry Mississippi State’s outcome alone. They represent the work that must accompany whichever quarterback and running back are available.

The Bulldogs need useful rushing support, dependable receiving production, prepared depth and a defense capable of finishing. Saturday will test whether those responsibilities come together.

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