Some initial thoughts after looking over it using the default settings:
It feels like there's too many top tier QBs. 7 are rated in the nineties, a further 10 in the 80s. No team will (reasonably) be starting anyone under 70 rating, as there's another 22 that fall into this category, leaving a grand total of 39 rated 70 or over. Maybe this is as intended? However, I can't think of any back-up QBs in the NFL who I'd rate in the 70s on here, and there's even quite a few starters in the league who I'd struggle to see cracking the 60s.
This may be a fluke, but guards seemed to outclass the tackles (there were
zero 85+ rated LTs). Since prototypical body size isn't taken into account, positions are totally fluid from guard to tackle, so I expect almost all of those top tier guards are destined to becoming LTs. So ultimately this is mostly an aesthetic concern, but it'd make more sense for the initial gen to favor creating top tier tackles rather than guards (which would also help the CPU since I don't believe they swap player positions around?).
Can Kickers and Punters be toned down to the normal distribution levels of every other position, and just tinker with the code to make the gap between a 99 and 70 rated k/p less significant? Because it's kind of pointless when 3/4ths of the league will be starting a 90+ rated player at that position, and there's literally none gen'd under 80.
Only 12 CBs were gen'd over 70, with zero above 87. While NFL WRs do tend to be better than the DBs covering them, the paucity isn't that significant (although this may of course be a statistical fluke). Top tier safeties, on the other hand, were significantly more numerous at both SS and FS, which is totally counter to the NFL, because if you're a capable DB you're almost always slotted over to CB in college, so it's much rarer to see high-skilled safeties than it is CBs.