Kyle,
In a stroke play event, there's just no logic in taking the risk for such a minimal, nebulous reward. In match play, no way would I ever risk the instant loss of a hole for such a small gain. You can hit it safely anywhere from left edge to the middle of the fairway and still more often than not have a good shot at par. You can still hit the green and make birdie. The effect of the blindness is only at its peak the first time or two you play the hole. Then as long as you know where the pin is it's just another golf shot.
I would consider a shot down the right side if it was the only way to have a shot at the green in two on a par-5. But simply to see the pin when I have a short iron in hand no matter where I am in the fairway, no way. With a perfect view of the cup and PW in hand from 130 yards, you're still not going to make birdie more than one out of three or four times if you are a scratch golfer. Even when blind, that same scratch golfer with the line and distance is still going to hit it in the green and make par or better the vast majority of the time. The further away you are from scratch, the more dangerous the drive to the right and worse the risk/reward ratio becomes.
Mark,
Thanks. If this wasn't a C&C course, I wonder how the discussion would be going. They're my favorite architects and I love their work (Trails is my favorite at Bandon, for instance) but I just can't help but believe that how the course is being looked at is being impacted too greatly by who designed it. It's a good course no doubt. But I'm not seeing whatever it is that has some people extolling it as one of the best courses to come along in years.