Sure. The thing to keep in mind is that nobody really knows. I am inclined to believe that
Yersinia pestis was involved at least partially based on the contemporary recovery of traces of that organism from the remains of the victims - the article mentions this. But there are some curious anomalies, the most significant of which to me seems the speed of its spread. That there are no piles of rat remains is probably not particularly important - it depends on the assumption that the fleas only bite humans if their rat hosts are dead, and they do not. What they do is get desperate when their proboscis is clogged by the fantastic multiplication of the organism - they'll bite anything at that point, they're starving. And we know from prairie dog communities in the Southwest (yes, the U.S. is now a plague reservoir) that the disease does not necessarily kill off the host population or it would still be a plague reservoir 100+ years after it came here.
So, I'll punt. What actually happened was likely never to be known.