Rookie Utilization or Lack Thereof?

Very interesting.

Looks like teams with the worst rosters play the most rookies, teams with best rosters play the least number of rookies. We are one of the worst but still play very few rookies, most likely because outside of Darrisaw there aren't any quality rookies to play.

Part of it is that we're mostly upset with 3rd rounders, whose chances of panning out are usually 40-50%, and most of them don't become starters in Year 1 of their rookie season. According to Pro Football Reference, only 4 3rd rounders from the 2021 class have been starters the whole year:

ATL G Jalen Mayfield
DAL DT Osa Odighizuwa
NO CB Paulson Adebo
PIT C Kendrick Green
(both the O-linemen have been very bad, BTW)

Other 2021 3rd rounders with at least 8 starts:

HOU QB Davis Mills
DEN G Quinn Meinerz
LAR LB Ernest Jones
DEN LB Baron Browning

Most of the rest, including our 4, are either not ready or not good. At this point it's too hard to tell, as many it takes many players until their 2nd or 3rd season to break out as a starter / improve their play to an acceptable level.

In the end, it was always likely that 2 of 4 of our 3rd rounders would pan out, but we'll need to get another look at them next year. My predictions:
QB Mond - Becomes a backup QB
LB Surratt - Remains a ST LB for the majority of his career
G Davis - Becomes a starting guard
DE Jones II - Becomes a rotational DE, plays 40-50% of snaps

And one thing I'd like to note in hindsight - I liked several other LBs over Surratt in the 3rd round, and the aforementioned LB Baron Browning is having a really nice rookie year. I don't get why they went with the raw and old Surratt over the much younger Browning who had also had the better tape in college.

Very interesting. Thanks. Going way back, Bud Grant was highly resistant to playing rookies. IIRC (I may not), Chuck Foreman and Sammy White were the outliers. Matt Blair contributed early. Gene Washington and Allan Page may have gotten in early as well, but that's before my Viking history.

Just by looking at the pretty little colors in the 2014-2021 chart I see that New England (6.7) played the least amount of rookies and won the SB 3 times. Philadelphia (7.4), KC (7.7) Denver (9.5) and Tampa (9.6) won SBs in that time span.

What does this all mean?

Don't think that has much bearing on it.

One of the biggest problems with the 2021 class was a lack of numbers because the NCAA changed eligibility rules because of Covid, and the fact that some conferences didn't play, some played a reduced schedule,etc.
So the Seniors were granted an extra year of eligibility if they wanted it, and some took that route and some of the Juniors who were thinking of declaring decided to stay in college.

As a result, there were only about 660 players in the draft pool when normally there are about 1000. This meant that some positions were very thin on prospects, and you had guys taken as 3rd or 4th rounders who would normally not be taken until round 5 or later.

From a Vikings perspective, the lack of a 2nd round pick was very telling, and I would suspect that Spielman probably tried to trade up but found no takers. 
While I agree with the overall sentiment of the coaches being unable to develop players, Spielman takes a lot of blame for the 2021 class IMO. He executed a dumb trade for a player who didn't fit the system and cost himself a very valuable draft asset that was required for such a weak class. He even acknowledged himself before the draft that the talent pool wasn't deep, and he changed his normal trade down multiple times mentality.

I do think with a new coaching staff some of these guys have potential to work out, which guys and how they contribute is unknown at this stage until we see what the new staff looks like.

It means teams that have a lot of veteran talent that think they can chase a sb will start their veteran talent.

Good visuals Reignman .

My first thought when looking at the rookie snap counts of the Zimmer era is that you see 4 times in which they ranked 23rd or worst in rookie snap counts and 4 times in which they were in the Top 10...still yet another example of "mediocrity" of the "complete" Zimmer era that further backs up your other thread titled "Leading the Way to Mediocrity" (link to that thread here: link).

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that rookie snap counts don't necessarily indicate success - of the team or the rookies themselves. PFF did a really good piece last offseason after the Bucs on the Super Bowl on the teams that have drafted the best recently, and used WAR and positional value, not snap counts, to determine which teams have had the most success through their recent draft picks (link to PFF piece here: link). If you just look at WAR (wins above replacement) the Chiefs and Bucs have lead the way, w/ the Vikes in the middle....and if you look at it via positional value (taking out the QB position), the Bucs are the leader and the Vikings are near the bottom.

All this goes back to the age-old question that Viking fans have been debating for a while on the Zimmer/Spielman era when determining who's ultimately the most at fault for the failure of the Vikings during that timeframe (failure as-in a failure to get over the hump into being considered a consistent contender). Has Rick and the Scouting Dept consistently delivered good talent via the Draft for Zimmer to work with, or has Zimmer and his coaching staff failed to utilize the rookies Rick has drafted?

I'm not sure these numbers ultimately solve that question, other than it's probably a mix of both: during the 8-yr Zimmer era, Spielman and the Scouting Dept have been "mediocre" at delivering quality prospects to the coaching staff, and you could argue Zimmer and his staff have been inconsistent in giving the rookies enough snap counts.