<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wide Receivers Still Workhorses of the NFL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/2009/06/wide-receivers-workhorses-nfl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/2009/06/wide-receivers-workhorses-nfl/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:14:14 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: WRs Continue Workhorse Streak &#8211; Fantasy Football Calculator Blog</title>
		<link>http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/2009/06/wide-receivers-workhorses-nfl/comment-page-1/#comment-1258</link>
		<dc:creator>WRs Continue Workhorse Streak &#8211; Fantasy Football Calculator Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:36:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/?p=65#comment-1258</guid>
		<description>[...] the analysis from 2009 and 2008, below is an updated graph showing the number of high-use WRs and RBs each [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the analysis from 2009 and 2008, below is an updated graph showing the number of high-use WRs and RBs each [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: markV</title>
		<link>http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/2009/06/wide-receivers-workhorses-nfl/comment-page-1/#comment-826</link>
		<dc:creator>markV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fantasyfootballcalculator.com/blog/?p=65#comment-826</guid>
		<description>Cool!  Thanks for doing this. This is a result of RBBC for sure, but I am actually wondering if we see less WRs this year with 90+ receptions due to the amount of 3 WR sets and TE use.  Good job!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool!  Thanks for doing this. This is a result of RBBC for sure, but I am actually wondering if we see less WRs this year with 90+ receptions due to the amount of 3 WR sets and TE use.  Good job!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
