GPA Award or an All-Star?

Tomthepost

Following on from the thread 'the real team of the year' one thing has been irratating me.
Do you good people think
(a) Players genuinely get a better buzz out of an All-Star Award?
or
(b) Players genuinely get a better buzz out of a GPA Award?
PLEASE NO SITTING ON THE FENCE WITH COMMENTS LIKE 'THEY ARE BOTH GREAT HONOURS'

yahoo_moe

Except for the fact that the GPA is position-by-position and the All-Stars are line-by-line (and even then they're a bit change-happy), I'm guessing any player would want to be recognised as being the best in their area by as many groups as possible - i.e. would be looking to win both and anything else that's going...

Basically I don't think one is "better" than the other. Sure, one is more established but they're selected by different methods and they represent the views of two different groups so I'd certainly hate to have to choose

In a gun-to-the-head situation, I'd probably go All-Star myself though

jackbhoy

Think the All-Stars are more prestigious because of history and great players that have won them.