First off, great game so far! I'm really enjoying how things are coming together. Here are a couple suggestions I think can add to the realism of the game:

1. I think it would be helpful to separate LBs into ILBs and OLBs. These positions require different traits and it makes sense that they're separate.
2. It would be nice these positions could be labeled based on defensive scheme. For example, have 43 DE and 34 DE since these positions require different traits and skills.

The game takes things like Height and weight into account, and then there are all the effects of the player ratings and personality, I think the idea is that these things combine to create a wide variety of different types of players.

This might really help the AI, but personally I wouldn't want to see extra limits on how I build my linebacker core or D-line like this, if it was done with the position skill mechanic it would probably be really restrictive.

Agree with Zimmer. You can already set multiple schemes and depth charts of you want to micromanage your line without additional positions

I agree with Zimmer and Cleasby. Any time you restrict choices, you restrict strategy. Since this is a strategy game, I don't want my strategy restricted. It's up to you, the GM, who you think should be playing what position. As you said in the OG, depending on your defensive scheme, etc. you'll use guys differently. So why pigeonhole a guy when he could be used myriad ways.

I actually would like to see these given out as traits. I think there is a trait that gives someone a Nose tackle but it would be cool to see more traits specifically for 3-4 defenses.

Also how much does size, strength and speed play in the game at those DL positions? Have anyone ran any tests with a undersize DE playing DE in a 3-4?

I haven't noticed the AI favoring a bigger DE over a smaller DE in a 3-4 defense.

Another thing is a lot of those athletic DE doesn’t have some sort of LB skills in the game. I wonder if that is also true for generated players?

I understand what all of you are saying and for my 2nd point it makes sense. Not so much for my 1st point because OLB and ILB are just different positions. Right now, the game is listing LBs based on overall skill; the highest rated LB is automatically MLB 1 and so on. So T.J. Watt is playing MLB, which is completely out of position. The game separates offensive linemen because we all understand that a C should have a different skill set than a T, so I don't understand why having OLB and ILB is too restrictive.

I think you are picking an intentionally extreme example to make your point. Which is fine, its common technique in discourse, but it's just that, an extreme example.

In many (not all) systems OLBs and ILBs are not THAT different, not any more. In the modern NFL linebackers across the board are GENERALLY (not trying to scream just emphasize) getting smaller, faster, and more versatile.

I dont deny that you have a point, of course there are exceptions. But the game already does a pretty darn good job of offering many types of players, and the game cant possibly simulate every player type uniquely. Should we also have a "gadget" position type ( Yes I know this is the same hyperbole I pointed out in your comment).

The point is, the line must be drawn somewhere, and, while understanding the distinction, I think adding more LB types would be unnecessary and too limiting to other aspects of the game as stated by others above.

basic football 101. The linebacker positions are inside, outside and middle depending on your scheme. Its like the same as calling all the members of your secondary DB's. When in fact a safety is way different than a corner.

The discussion is not about whether or not a distinction exists, it's about whether or not the game needs additional position skill mechanics to account for the distinction.

We are all familiar with " Basic Football 101", thanks.

I agree with MWilliams here. Having all LB’s lumped into one is like having DB’a lumped into one position