TEPaul,
Not at all.
You have to differentiate between adding length for lengths sake and adding length to retain the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer.
Like the Maginot line, the road hole bunker complex has become a vestigal feature due to high tech.
Restoring MacDonald's intended use of that feature is a noble pursuit, one that would reinstate strategy and thinking for golfers standing on the 7th tee.
And, that revitalization of strategy extends far beyond the tee shot, it would impact the second shot and the approach shot.
As to # 18, moving the gates 50 yards or 50 feet north reroutes the roadway, allowing the use of elasticity, a concept you, as a Flynn afficianado, should be familiar with.
That would allow the left side, semi cross bunker to come back into play, and it would restore the strategic nature of the tee shot, which would also affect the second shot and approach shot.
Changing the scorecard to read par 4 from par 5 does nothing to re-integrate the architecture with the golfer, in fact, it ignores the negative consequences brought about by high tech and distance.
You stubbornly resist the concept of retaining Charles Blair MacDonald's brilliant design and its intended integration with the golfer, choosing instead to suggest the reprinting of scorecards.
# 2 was lengthened for that purpose, as was # 8 and # 14.
Doing the same at # 7 and # 18 would greatly enhance the play of those holes as it would return the architectural features to their intended role of interfacing with the golfer.