Every weekday throughout the season, ESPNNewYork.com will tackle a burning question about the Knicks in our "Opening Tip" segment.
Today's Burning Question: Are the Knicks better off without Jeremy Lin?
Tyson Chandler loves Jeremy Lin. He's said so many times. So his recent comments about Lin's ability (or inability) to run the Knicks' offense last season shouldn't be taken out of context. Chandler doesn't begrudge Lin for the big contract he signed with Houston. He doesn't want to see him fail with the Rockets.
But the veteran offered what has to be considered an honest assessment of Lin's game when he said the point guard had trouble getting the Knicks' stars the ball in the right spots last season.
"Jeremy was a young point guard who was inexperienced, who brought a great light to the organization. But as far as being able to run the offense and putting players in the right position he just wasn't there. We got some veteran point guards that are capable of doing that," Chandler told reporters on Friday.
Based on reputation, both players are widely considered to be better candidates to run Mike Woodson's half-court offense than Lin would have been.
Lin thrived in Mike D'Antoni's up-tempo, pick-and-roll heavy offense but seemed to clash at times with Carmelo Anthony's preference to operate in isolation.
Both Chandler and Anthony noted recently that Kidd and Felton seem have provided a calming influence on the Knicks during preseason scrimmages. Chandler made that assessment before offering his critique on Lin.
Obviously, you can only infer so much from an intrasquad scrimmage. We won't be able to draw any concrete conclusions until they roll the basketballs out on November 1. But what do you think?
Based on how things have played out thus far, do you believe the Knicks would be better off with Lin, or with Felton and Kidd running the offense?
Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
You can follow Ian Begley on Twitter.