Sean - We agree that the fairways are too narrow past the pinch points, and yes, there are some holes without them. #2's pinch points can be accessed with pinpoint driving, but the fact is that the men at their Open for the most part didn't even try, as that left them with for them very manageable 7-8 irons in, while the women, who didn't want to keep leaving themselves with 170+ yard approaches, took them on. And so did you, from the tees you played, and I suspect so do 90%+ of the players who play the course because the vast majority of daily play comes from players who want to hit their drivers. What you then end up with is a seemingly very wide course that actually dictates center line golf.
PN's terrain is so much more interesting, and it's incorporation into the driving demands pretty ingeniously. We had that discussion when we played. From the back tees there are a number of holes where you bang it into upslopes, adding substantially to the playing length of the holes (examples include #6, #7, #11, #12). The driving requirements at PN are far more varied, and if ever they were to incorporate the cupping locations that Kyle has now created, accurate driving to certain spots on the fairways would be greatly beneficial. The width is generous and appropriate for the course's primary purpose as a resort, yet it can be turned into a competitive examination very quickly and easily just with cupping locations.
#2 is of course more difficult and the far greater big tournament course. But take away its history factored in to the player's evaluation, and PN has certain features that may make it a more interesting, varied, and enjoyable course for most players, especially with repeated play.