As the 2025 NFL playoffs progressed and it became clear that the Seattle Seahawks were the best team in the league, one potential Achilles Heel was on everyone’s mind. Would Sam Darnold come up small at a crucial moment and cost the Hawks the championship? As it turned out, that did not happen. Not even close.
There’s an analogous story to be gleaned from the recently-leaked NFLPA team report cards. These are comprised of surveys of players about 17 distinct aspects of each NFL franchise. And, as you may have heard, you’re not supposed to see them, as declared by some official – albeit anonymous – arbitrator. Surprise, surprise – the results came out last week despite the ruling.
And the Seahawks were in contention for the title once again. There was just one fly in the ointment. Unlike Darnold, this time, the bugaboo did come back to bite them. Seattle was sabotaged by the very ground they walk on.
Seattle Seahawks have an almost perfect report card
Before diving in on the Seahawks' problem, let’s get two things established right up front.
First, Seattle did extremely well on the survey, finishing fourth overall. More on that in a moment.
Second, these grades have absolutely nothing to do with on-field performance. In fact, this season, I don’t think you could have designed a survey with less correlation to on-field success.
Of the 14 teams to make the playoffs in 2025, four came from the top third in terms of report grades, while three came from the bottom third. That means half the playoff teams – seven in all – came from the middle third. In the Super Bowl, the fourth-ranked Seahawks topped the 26th-ranked New England Patriots.
Can you say “bell-shaped curve?”
Seattle finished behind Miami, Minnesota, and Washington in this year’s report card results. But they boasted a whopping 14 A-grades (A+, A, or A-) across those 17 categories. That tied the Dolphins (number one overall) for the most As. It was three more than the second-ranked Minnesota and four more than the third-ranked Commanders.
So why did Seattle fall behind those two clubs in the overall rankings?
Because Minnesota and Washington had no grade lower than a B. Seattle had 14 As, 2 Bs, and one F.
That’s right, Seattle got an F. Dallas, who finished 22nd overall, didn’t have an F. But the Seahawks did.
It was Lumen Field. The Seahawk players gave their home field an F.
Now, this is not terribly surprising. The Seahawks play their home games on a turf field. You can search the world over and not find a single person who will tell you they like playing on a turf field. Turf has definitely improved from the early days of hard plastic over hard concrete, but, well, it’s still basically just somewhat softer plastic over equally hard concrete.
Everyone would rather play on natural grass. But grass is not easy to maintain in the Seattle climate.
And so Lumen employs a state-of-the-art FieldTurf product that is touted as being safer and more natural-feeling than old-fashioned astroturf. And it got an F.
The Seahawks are not alone in hating their home field. Players on the Bills and Panthers also gave their home fields an F. Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and Tennessee did them one better by awarding their home turf an F-. Giants and Jets players agreed that MetLife Stadium’s FieldTurf surface was worthy of an F- as well.
A grade in the F range was unusual on this survey. Only four percent of all grades were Fs. 22 in all, spread across 15 clubs. (The bottom-dwelling Steelers managed a sensational four F grades.)
The bottom ten overall teams each had at least one F. Seattle was the highest-rated team to feature one. The only other franchise in the top 15 to have an F was Las Vegas, and they dealt with their major wart before the 2025 season was even over. (It was their offensive coordinator, who was fired in November.)
Unfortunately, Seattle cannot fire their field. They can send it on hiatus, as they are in fact doing for the upcoming World Cup, when a temporary grass surface will be installed. But it will not stay. The turf is returning. Apparently, the NFL cannot live up to the high moral standards of FIFA, who refuses to play on turf.
I get that maintaining a grass field in Seattle is a challenge. It’s not only home to the Seahawks. The Sounders and the Reign play a lot of games there as well. I don’t pretend to know the horticultural details that would go into installing grass permanently.
I just know that the NFL is a money-printing machine and that this is a blight. Turf at Lumen is like your creepy brother who keeps ruining family photos by wearing his Mötley Crüe tee shirt.
It kept Seattle from winning the NFLPA report card race this year (or from finishing second – I didn’t do the math). Is it at all possible that the Seahawks could lose a free agent – or suffer a key injury – because of its field?
Yes, it is. It may not be the biggest factor, but it could matter. And it should be addressed.
NOTE: I don't like how negative this story ends, so let me add this happy addendum. Seattle's head coach, GM, and team ownership all got As. But the club got just one A+. Can you guess what it was for? I bet you can't.
Even after winning the Super Bowl and attracting some head coaching buzz, no one seems to know who Aden Durde is. But the Seahawks' players obviously respect their underrated defensive coordinator. If the turf on Lumen Field is their Achilles Heel, Aden Durde just might be their ace in the hole.