I agree. While there are probably a bunch of use-cases where Drupal is a good solution, I find that it doesn't hit any 'sweet spot' that I care about.
For very simple sites I'm inclined to use a static site generator.
For relatively simple sites that need a CMS, I use Wordpress (much as I dislike it). The clients are often familiar with it, and it is pretty easy to set things up. And if I'm going the Wordpress route, I might as well take advantage of the high amount of plugins and the complete (and often cheap) themes that target specific industries.
For anything more complicated, I used to be in the Drupal camp, but now I opt for a framework approach. Rails, Express, or something like that. With every single site I've built in Drupal I always ran into the problem that the time spent on 'clicky this and module that' eventually outgrew the initial speed advantage, and I would have been better off doing these things in code in a environment optimized for this approach ('true' frameworks).
I think it's analogous to how many of my clients insist on using Wordpress and paying more for that instead of a static site. They would've been better off with a static site that I update for a small fee, or perhaps even a small lesson in FTP-ing and editing a file, but they wanted the 'option' of logging in and changing stuff. But many of them never do.
Similarly, the choice of Drupal sometimes seems to be primarily project managers who want the 'option' of making complex changes through the admin interface, just so they have the option. Never mind that the complexity tends to be high enough that you need a programmer anyways to pull it off, so you might as well just go the framework way.