It's not a sexy answer, but it's practical. Just make sure you don't leave the WordPress site you use to generate static content open to the public.
I've been running my own blogs / portfolio in the last decade on static sites, from now now I'm using this new combo. Why? With the advent of the headless CMS scene static site generators just lost their unique advantage to spitting out HTML files. And meantime they didn't advance at all on the content creation side.
Creating, managing and distributing content with a CMS is far easier than with a static site generator. And when the final output is the same the choice is obvious.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with HardyPress nor Wordpress, however I do create themes for Wordpress.
Notes: In my profile the first link is a statically generated site, as well as the others in the About section. The second link is a Wordpress+HardyPress combo and you can check it live the amazing speed it offers.
I've used it a little over a year ago and found things rather unintuitive when it came to setting up plugins. Not sure if it's gotten any better though. But, if you say it's practical, I'll give it another look and see if suits my needs. Thank you!
There's really no value in "static" websites, if by static you mean pure HTML and CSS. a 512MB server from vultr for $2.50/mo can host dozens of simultaneous visitors on a well-built WordPress site without any slowdown at all.
The fact that you mention it has a content-editor indicates you're not using it in a static fashion.
(Correction, I hadn't realised you could use it in a static way... I last touched WordPress back in the dark ages!)