Pros and Cons of Playing on a Good Team

Hey hockey families! Today, let’s break down the pros and cons of playing on a “good team” and how it affects player development. Plus, we’ll talk about what kind of players might benefit more from being on a strong team or a weaker one. This is a topic that sparks a lot of debate, so let’s dive in.

First, the pros of being on a good team. Playing on a competitive team teaches you how to win, which is an invaluable skill. When you’re constantly in tournaments, semi-finals, and finals, you develop an expectation of success. Winning becomes part of your mindset, and that belief carries over into how you approach challenges on and off the ice. You also get to play with skilled teammates, which sharpens your game. You’re reading higher hockey IQ plays, practicing at a faster pace, and running systems that mimic the next level. There’s confidence to be gained, even if some of it might be false. Learning to handle the pressure of a team expected to win can also push your mental game to new heights.

Now, for the cons, which are many. One of the biggest is that you don’t learn how to lose. Players on super teams often struggle with adversity. They’re so used to winning that a single bad game or period leads to meltdowns, bad body language, and blame-shifting. Another issue is the lack of true competition. On dominant teams, you might only face real challenges in the semi-finals or finals of tournaments. Most of the time, you’re not truly competing. Like Mike Tyson said, you don’t know if you’re a real fighter until you’re in the ring with someone equally skilled. That’s where many players from super teams fall short—they’ve never been tested. They haven’t learned to make things work when the game isn’t going their way. Additionally, these players can develop false pride. They’ve always been told how great they are, and when they hit a higher level where everyone is just as good, they often struggle. They’ve played with elite teammates their whole lives, so they’ve never had to adapt to imperfect passes, gritty linemates, or scrappy competition.

So, which situation is better? Honestly, it depends on the player and their long-term goals. If you’re fortunate enough to ride the wave of a great team all the way to the pros, fantastic. But there’s immense value in playing for a weaker team and learning to lead. On a weaker team, you often have to be the one who drives the play, makes things happen, and elevates everyone around you. You learn resilience and develop a work ethic that stays with you for life. These experiences pay off when you reach the next level, where you might land on a struggling team or in a role that doesn’t give you top minutes. If you’ve only ever played on the best teams with the best players, that adjustment can hit like a ton of bricks.

Here’s the bottom line: There’s no perfect situation. Whether you’re on a dominant team or a struggling one, the key is embracing your environment and finding ways to improve. The only environment I’d steer a player away from is one that’s toxic—a team with an abusive coach or a culture that stifles growth. Beyond that, every challenge—good team or bad—has something valuable to teach. At the end of the day, hockey mirrors life: You don’t get to pick the circumstances, but you can control how you respond to them. So, lean into the adversity, adapt, and grow. That’s what truly sets players apart.