Drury, as usual, makes some excellent points in this post (although I wish he'd have his blog in a feed format!). I would argue, however, that Drury doesn't go far enough in his analysis of the Boomer-driven trends.
First, he fails to point one of the most significant differences compared to Emergents: theology. Baby Boomers focused on methodology, and lacked honest theological discussion on what they were doing. Emergents generally have stronger theological orientation.
Second, I'm not totally convinced that the boomers "won". Possibly in certain places, and undoubtedly their influence has been prominent. It's just that the changes probably weren't enough, and were hardly a "violent overthrow" despite the tensions that were created. Nevertheless, his observation is accurate that the now-leader boomers have become more conservative and protective and are less interested in change than before.

I think that your "that the changes probably were'nt enough" comment was right. It was a style change. It seems to me that Drury may see emergent as a style. This is a theme I pick up from boomers all the time. From other conversations I think it's a re-orientation, not a revlot. Because a church can be emergent/missional and have bright colors and upbeat music. If the focus is on relationships and not beliefs even or methods, that is part of emergent too. [speaking from Len Sweet's perspective "Out of the Question..."]
I apperciate his heart there though. "Who knows, that may help the Emergents avoid some [of]our mistakes?" He is talking about ya know, talking. Ya know, relationships. Places where we can really talk about who we are inside, what's on our hearts. Ya know, the Church? Deep relationships. Sharing life together [Acts 2]. To end on another loose quote from Sweet, "Jesus did not come to bring a proposition. He came with a proposal. The propostal: Will you love me? Will you allow me to love you? Jesus was nailed to a cross to deliver God's proposal." [pg 21]