I know I won't change Pat's mind regarding his beloved NGLA, but I would like to present a different point of view to consider.
While NGLA has much wider fairways (currently about double the fairway acreage of SHGC), which the average golfer appreciates immensely, the approach shots to a number of greens, especially the more manufactured ones) are very difficult for the average golfer due to the perched nature of the greens with abrupt falloffs, the hidden nature of the green sites, the steep slopes and significant internal contouring. These features, especially given today's green speeds (perhaps double the intended speed) along with wind are the course's only defense with today's game. Much of the fairway bunkering is not in play for elite players due to width, positioning and modern balls and implements. They are more in play for average golfers. A golfer of Pat's considerable abilities might lose sight of these factors.
If a golfer plays to the middle of the greens at SHGC, he/she has a reasonable chance at 2-putting. This is not the case at NGLA due to the nature of its putting surfaces. The NGLA greens are a lot more overt contouring than at SHGC. Where SHGC becomes difficult for the best players is when the pins are tucked behind bunkers and/or near gradual falloffs. Slight misses to these peripheral pins can result in very difficult recoveries due to the short grass areas around the greens and the green designs themselves. The current green expansion brings these lost pin positions back into play thus influencing decision making back to the tee.
NGLA, to the credit of the membership and superintendent, have restored fairway width and green space to their original limits. Well, one green is well beyond the original dimensions. Once the greens at SHGC have been restored to their original dimensions, the course will have its full potential restored. I think people who don't know the course very well may have some difficulty in grasping just how important this will be to how the course plays and how much strategies are returned. The green expansion project is well under way and within a few years it will be complete. This is more important a restoration phase than fairway expansion would be. Given that NGLA has not held major tournaments in so many decades and SHGC has, it should not be surprising that fairway widths have been reduced at SHGC. I think they should be returned because combined with green expansions, the more off line the tee shot, the more difficult the approach will be. Wider fairways will allow tee shots and second shots on par 5s to stray more off the ideal line, especially when the golf course is properly firm and fast. As for Pat determining what the club can and cannot afford to do, that is not his call nor does he have all the facts necessary to make such a statement. NGLA has a lot more outings than SHGC and has a much bigger budget. That is their choice. That does not mean it must be SHGC's choice.
As far as width goes, I don't believe in width for width's sake, standardized width if you will. I like a case by case approach depending upon the hole design and topography of each. There is nothing at all wrong with a variety of width and even demanding, or testing the ability to deal with narrow fairways on some holes. I agree with Pat that it shouldn't be the case on every hole.
As for Shinnecock's rough, I find the presentation of it ideal on a daily basis. Pat's recollection of the rough at SHGC in the last Open is not accurate in my opinion. It was perfect a bit more than a week preceding the 2004 Open. However, it was cut shortly thereafter and did not achieve the level of difficulty the USGA wanted, so the greens (the USGA's last line of defense of par) were kept ultra firm and excessively fast.