It’s a fine hypothesis to suspect that turf causes more injuries than grass but answering that question by looking at where teams play their home games is the wrong approach. You’ll get a much clearer picture by recording where each injury happened.

One of the big issues with your take is that there are confounding factors such as:

• Are teams that play home games on turf better adjusted to it?
• How many division rivals (where a lot of road games are played) have grass vs turf?

I don’t know if it’s that clear. By my quick count, of the top ten by injuries, five have grass and five have turf (although the turf owners are a little higher up). Of the bottom four, two have turf (bengals and vikings) and two have grass (jags and chiefs). There are probably a lot of other factors that are more important (athletic conditioning staff, age of roster).