48 player lineup vs 53 player lineup

[LabattBlue]

Why not allow teams to dress and play all 53 players instead of just 48?  There is no difference in terms of cap or any other financial reasons. 
 

Color me confused. 🤔

 

[boyst]

i have wondered this too, considering the league is all about player safety and the union pretends to care about the players.

 

after they increased the PS i figured it'd be natural to allow at least 49 players to dress...cuz...ya know... think of the safety? less pressed to play banged up or injured players. lol

 

honestly, the union only cares about the vested players if they care at all and the league wants the best players on the field at all times to give the best perforance, even if it means injury becasue it adds drama to the story.

[jlatas]

Never understood why all 53 can't suit up for a game!

[nedboy7]

By limiting the number of players available on game day, the league prevents wealthier teams from "stockpiling" excessive talent, which could create an unfair advantage over teams with smaller budgets.
 

 The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the Players Association (NFLPA) structures contracts with various bonuses, including "active roster bonuses" for players who are dressed for a game. Limiting the game-day roster helps manage salary cap implications and associated bonus payments.

 

[BearNorth]

2 minutes ago, jlatas said:

Never understood why all 53 can't suit up for a game!

Even with injuries you would think they could allow practice squad elevations to get to 50 plus the kicker, punter, and long snapper.

[HardyBoy]

Because you're more likely to have 48 out or 53 healthy players...if one team has 53 healthy enough players to play and the other team has only 49 healthy players to play, that's a disadvantage...this makes it more likely to be even...that's how I've always understood it