This all seems plausible and is exactly why Devaney was brought in. Sometimes when friends are involved we can not see the forest through the trees. So having an additional perspective and someone who will be honest with us is important.The article only dispels the notion that Eichorst forced Riley to replace Banker. It does not dispel any talk about Devaney's role in the move. Per Short Side Option, this is how it went down...and nothing in the article dispels what *** said.
"Devaney looked at our roster and saw we had walk-ons at 50% of our DEs two deep in 2015, and started one each of the last two seasons.
Devaney saw we couldn't get a rush to save our lives without the blitz and what the LB room for edge rushers compared to DEs.
Devaney brought up our personnel being possibly more suited for a 3-4.
Devaney brought up if that was something we needed to do, we most likely needed to change coordinators.
Riley looked at roster and thought maybe he was on to something.
Riley would not do anything without knowing realistic replacement options, as we had improved.
Riley dug deep enough to find issues that were consistent last year and this year, despite the improvements.
Devaney presents Diaco as an option, rest is history.
I am of the opinion if it was not for Devaney, Banker would be our DC next year as the option we got may not have been presented. But that's part of why Devaney is here. Diaco would not be here over Banker if Riley did not ok bringing him here, which is Riley having the final say."