Start video at 30 seconds..
A Full Court Press was intended to use the energy and quickness of a smaller team to disrupt the flow of a bigger team's offense. It was also implemented because most bigger teams couldn't dribble that well. An example of the effectiveness of the press would be the UCLA Bruins. In 1964 and 1965, the legendary coach John Wooden led his UCLA Bruins to the NCAA championship with the full court press. In the video above we see how Seton Hall uses their diamond 1-2-1-1 full court press. The effectiveness of their press allows them to get turnovers and score easy points. However, if the press isn't executed properly, then the offensive team gets an easy lay-up. This also shows the vulnerability of David's strategy, which would result in death. Relating to the biblical story of David and Goliath, David used tactics that involved quickness and maneuvering . David went to King Saul for approval to fight Goliath. In the process of receiving a blessing from King Saul, he was offered the King's armor. David declined the offer responding saying that the Lord was on his side. So Goliath was appalled to see a boy coming to represent the Israelites (as were some of the Israelites). After a short battle with David coming out victorious, the Philistine army was squirming to get as far away from the Israelites as possible. Inevitably, the Israelites caught up with and killed the Philistine army.
This profund victory won by David astonished the Philistines as shown in their expedited retreat to safety. Was the victory of David because he was at an advantage against Goliath, or was it because Goliath was at a disadvantage? What might've happened if David had lost the battle and was slain? Explain your reasoning.
I feel this is a good relation to the David and Goliath story, well done Sam. I believe it could had been taken both ways because the advantage of david would have put Goliath at a disadvantage. In the same way it could have been taken as Goliaths disadvantage being an advantage to David. But i believe that Goliath was to an advantage because he had a weapon where he could strike goliath from a longer distance than if he had a sword where he might have had to come in contact with the giant, giving Goliath the advantage. If David had lost this battle then the Philistines would have dominated the war.
ReplyDeleteIt was because goliath was at an advantage. Because whenever small opponents or weak opponents come into a battle that they are clearly not gonna win. The overdogs take it for granite and do not try there hardest. Resulting in lazy play and even sometimes losing the competition. But if David would have lost the battle no one would have believed in underdogs and they would of stood down to Goliath. And accepted defeat.
ReplyDeleteI think that both answers to the first question could both be justified as correct. David had the advantage due to God being on his side. Goliath was at a disadvantage because he had mocked God and therefore God was not with him. I think that if David would have lost the battle than it would have changed a major part of history. To start with, David would be dead, so he would have never become king. He would never had led Israel to glory and victory in battle. He would not have been mentioned in the bible. Most of the Psalms would not exist because he wrote most of them. David would not have grown up to have children. This would result in Solomon not being born. Solomon was the king of Israel for 40 years and was the one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. The most important thing that would have been altered if David had lost the battle is the birth of Jesus. The bible tells us that Jesus is a direct decedent of David. What would happen to Jesus? Would he have even come to earth in the form of a man? I don't know the answers to those questions but I am grateful that David defeated Goliath.
ReplyDelete