I think he belongs, no doubt about it. Look at it this way: When Art Monk retired, he led the NFL in many receiving categories and had three Super Bowl rings. Emmitt Smith has three rings and will retire as the leading rusher of all time, but will there be any doubt or argument as to his induction? Art Monk represents class, determination, longevity, success, and was an instrumental part of four conference championship teams - not many players can make that claim, and those that do are in the HOF. The real controversy should be why he's not in. One of the main reasons is that he doesn't politic the issue (much like Mel Gibson not promoting his films among the Oscar judges).
You pretty much nailed it. Monk needs to be in the HOF. I'm actually surprised that Gary Clark is getting as much HOF speculation as he is...I figured Monk was a shoo-in, but never really thought about (fellow James Madison University Duke) Clark. But looking at his numbers, I can see why people are talking about him. Irvin, to be fair (and this pains me as a Cowboy-hater), was much more of a gamebreaker than Clark. Clark, however, was one of the most fearless across-the-middle guys I ever saw, especially considering that he was a pretty small guy.
Trivia: My little podunk I-AA program, James Madison, had just three guys in the NFL at one point...but those three guys had at least eight Super Bowl appearances between them. Gary Clark, Charles Haley, and Scott "Wide Right" Norwood.
}:-)4