Sure, there's not. But we generally consider OL play to be one of the defining factors of a football team. It's often cited as a reason to turn up the heat on the OL coach for not recruiting or developing his guys well enough, for example. Or used as a reason to excuse a lack of demonstrable quality at QB because the OL is not doing great.
'Average' OL performance explains a lot of things. Dress that up to 'pretty solid' and this points the finger elsewhere. In this case it seems hardly fair to merit that. The OL needs to kick it up a notch, along with other groups. Most things right now are within some reasonable definition of average, and so long as that holds we'll (probably) have a pretty average season. Which, if this is considered fine, so should the latter. If not, then a great deal of improvement will be needed and the OL is as good a place as any to start -- if only because of the importance of the line to the game, but also because the potential here is fairly bright.
That's fair.
My issue at the moment is that the most obvious plays where things went wrong against Oregon that many like to point to as "bad OL play" are actually not that at all. The line did what they were supposed to do and did it well. The team was just put in a pretty bad position by the play call.