Larry Drew's predilection for bringing everything back to "energy" or some variant thereof isn't satisfying. Nor is it indicative of a lack of intelligence on his part. It's very indicative of a disinterest in saying anything interesting to the media which may, in fact, be a pretty strong indication of intelligence on his part.
The Atlanta Hawks may not receive the absolute least media scrutiny of any NBA team but they're surely close to the bottom. There's no incentive for Drew to make his job more difficult (and remember that his contract isn't guaranteed for next season) by talking publicly about why his team really beat a decent Pacers team a couple days after losing to a pretty poor Suns team. What does Drew gain by saying the Hawks beat the Pacers because, unlike the Suns, they couldn't exploit Atlanta's inability to defend the pick-and-roll?
It would be more entertaining for the small community of Hawks fans who watch every game, every season to have a sarcastic, insightful head coach like Stan Van Gundy or Scott Skiles delivering the post-game verdict but, given Drew's inexperience and contract situation, he'd be recklessly courageous to follow that path even were it in his nature to do so.
The Hawks win by turning defensive rebounds into transition buckets against a below average offensive team? Larry Drew can say:
"Energy. That was the difference. We are like night and day when we play with energy. We were able to sustain it. We came out and played energized basketball."on a continuous loop and it won't change the game's outcome. That's fine with me. I don't particularly need Larry Drew's implicit validation as to why the team won or lost. The team wins or loses. That's the important event.
Plus, being validated isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised than be proven right.