I see a bit of an issue with versatility vs active players. In the NFL 46 active players is enough because some players have the versatility to play different positions. The main issue is on the offensive line, where you can cover the five positions for a given game with three backups, if needed, because players can usually change sides, sometimes with a drop-off, sometimes not. But here the drop-offs are very steep for everyone. The lack of versatility means you need 10 OL active every game to be prepared for a potential injury. It's the same at other positions and 22 starters + 22 backups + two specialists = 46, but considering you need extra WRs and extra DBs for the 5WR packages, and RBs don't have enough endurance to carry twenty times, so that two can't handle the entire load of a game....

I'm not sure what, but I think an adjustment of some sort is needed.

I would agree with the above. I feel like there should be more versatile players particularly on the offensive line than what there are, particularly the highly rated players.

I would think the highly rated players would excel at a specific spot as they have probably played that spot or are built to play that spot specifically well while your depth guys (rated 60-68ish) would be more versatile because they have been a depth player for a few years and have been required to back up more positions.

It may be that the experience bar weighs down the composite rating more than it should - the in-game logic uses the bars in the same way regardless of their experience, but there is a small penalty added if the experience level is low (this takes into account the position experience as well as the knowledge of the offensive and defensive plays). That penalty is not the same across the board, it depends on the decision the game engine is making, so it's difficult to accurately depict how much his experience will affect those calculations in the composite rating. Also, having a player play at a different position than he's assigned does increase his experience for each play he's in the game at that position, it just won't grow as fast as if he was assigned it (since he doesn't practice it during the week).

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying a 34/70 player plays closer to a 70 than to a 34?

For a player to be 70/70 at, say, LG, and a 34/70 at RG, he would have to have a zero value for his position experience at RG - which will cause him to struggle. His experience will play heavily on whether he's able to get into position to engage in a block - where he'll play more like a 34 - but weighs less on how long he'll hold the block - where he'll probably play more like a 60-65. If you place that LG in the rotation for RG, he will develop experience at that position and should gradually close that gap somewhat.