Despite the similarities in subjectivity, there is a murky and fine-line difference between being the best player in the league and the most valuable player, and in selecting St. Louis quarterback Kurt Warner over Rams tailback Marshall Faulk for MVP honors, voters demonstrated they concur with the sketchy delineation between the two.

	MVP voters felt the Rams couldn't afford to lose Kurt Warner at quarterback.

Even the staunchest Warner advocate would have to agree that Faulk is the premier playmaker in the NFL, the elusive "X" factor in every game, a performer of such wondrous and diverse talents that St. Louis coaches came close to deploying him at cornerback in an early December contest at Atlanta when injuries depleted the secondary. And the pro-Faulk legion, at the same time, would readily acknowledge the significance of Warner as the trigger-man in one of the greatest offensive ensembles in league history.

This year, however, it was Warner's name that came out of the envelope, winning the award by a four-vote margin (21½-17½) over his teammate. It marked the second time in three seasons that the former afterthought quarterback, who played in anonymity in the Arena Football League and NFL Europe and might never have been anything more than a clipboard jockey had Trent Green not torn up his knee in the 1999 exhibition campaign, claimed the honor.

Combined with Faulk's most valuable player citation of a year ago, the Rams have a vise-grip monopoly on the award, and perhaps that's how it should be.

	Triple Threat
	Kurt Warner has now won two of the last three MVP awards (1999, 2001) and may have had a chance for all three had he played in every game last season. Warner still managed to pass for 21 touchdowns and over 3,400 yards despite missing those games, giving him one of the best three-year runs by a quarterback in NFL history. Here's a look at how Warner's last three seasons compare to Brett Favre's three straight MVP seasons from 1995-97. Warner had a much better completion percentage and averaged 293.3 yards per game compared to Favre's 253.7 per game, but Favre had clear advantage in the touchdown-to-interception category.
		Warner '99-01	Favre '95-97
	Games	43	48
	Comp.-Att.	935-1,392	988-1,626
	Comp. Pct.	.671	.608
	Yds.	12,612	12,179
	TD/INT	98/53	112/42
	-- Rico Longoria, ESPN.com

It is difficult to parse the importance of the two players to the Rams' offense, a unit comprising a galaxy of stars. And as long as Warner and Faulk continue to post the mind-boggling statistics that we have come to regard as routine output from them, the dilemma will always be the same.

Look up at the darkened sky and examine the sparkling lights of the firmament, from Acamar to Zuben Elschemali, and attempt to choose the brightest. Now you might comprehend what it is like to sit, pen poised over the ballot and agonize over whether to write "Warner" or "Faulk."

"Asking me to choose one or the other," allowed Rams coach Mike Martz, "would be like asking me which of my children I love the most."

True enough.

There are no guidelines distributed by the Associated Press, no definition to help the electors galvanize the nebulous term "most valuable," and for years the debate has ranged in all sports as to what MVP really means. And so most voters have settled on a simple question to help discern the most valuable player. To wit: If we take that guy off the roster, is his team as good, or would the club continue to succeed without him?

The consensus on Wednesday was that the least expendable player on the St. Louis roster was the quarterback, who won another passing title while leading the league in most aerial categories. It is tough to reduce the voting to pure numbers, even in the case of how the Rams fared in the three years Warner and Faulk have been together.

Counting the playoffs, St. Louis is 40-12 in that stretch, 2-3 in games Warner did not start, 2-2 in those Faulk missed because of injury. Faulk this year became the first player in history to post four straight seasons of 2,000 combined yards from scrimmage. Warner posted the second most passing yards in a single season. Truth be told, the voting characteristically goes beyond the pure numbers, and instead to the maddening mathematics of personally attempting to assign some degree of import to every player under consideration.

	“	Asking me to choose one or the other would be like asking me which of my children I love the most. ”
		— Mike Martz, Rams head coach

In the end, it usually comes down to a gut reaction, to a "feeling" about who is the right guy. There is no Solomon on hand, no sage or savant trying to divide one trophy into two, the jury a group of 50 media types, most of whom take seriously the responsibility imposed on them.

This year, as in many, the decision is open to debate. At the same time, it's not open to quarrel, since there were two such deserving candidates and either would have been a terrific selection.

One can only strongly suggest that Faulk deserved the award. It's far more difficult, though, to argue that Warner didn't.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.