I guess Ratten's logic was right to a point but what system did we have in place when the coach overrules the people that are charged with recruitment?
A coaches input is relative but shouldn't be the driving force in recruitment. Why even have recruiters if that's going to be the case. Just have observers. Cheaper.
The head coach's influence probably varies from club to club.
For mine the recruiters do all the grunt work (watching games/interviews/analysis) as the coach would never have the time but the recruiters aren't involved in game plan, development etc so unless the club's and the head coach's philosophy is best skills based player available at all times (which to me would be silly) the coach would and should be closely involved in recruitment in terms of who the club will go after come draft time.
Mick obviously took the lead with the Everitt and Thomas recruitments and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't right across the recruiters possibles at our picks. I'd go as far as to say he may even have had input in terms of order of preference.
Mick knows exactly what type of players he needs however the recruiting/scouting staff are there to ensure as many rocks are overturned as possible in the lead up to the draft and would then present a list.
Not saying Mick would have the only say but I reckon he'd go close to the final say.
Conversely a more junior coach without the runs on the board or a first time senior coach or a coach who's just been or about to be appointed (a la the Saints) may well defer to the head of recruiting.