Michael Crabtree said of Aqib Talib “childish” act of ripping his gold necklace off “I wanted to hit him”

We’ve long known that Aqib Talib may play on Sundays, but he’s like school on Sunday; No class. We also know that Michael Crabtree talks a lot of trash on the field. So, when you put those two guys together, what you get is two players who go at each other every play.

Two hotheads jawing is one thing. Intentionally destroying another player’s property is taking it too far. And as you might expect, it was Talib who crossed the line, ripping off Crabtree’s gold chain and then running away.

Also, as you might expect, Crabtree didn’t take Talib’s actions lightly.

“You’re acting,” Crabtree said of Talib. “Snatching chains on the field like... what you accomplish? You tough? That make you tough? You snatching chains in front of the police and take off running. Like what the... childish, man.”

“I wanted to hit him. But I made a business decision. I didn’t want to get kicked out the game. The team needs me.”

Talib was asked about it as well, and his reaction is pretty much right in line with his character.

“He’s just been wearing that chain all year, man,” Talib said of Crabtree. “It’s just been growing on me, so I said if you wear that chain in front of me, I’m going to snatch it off. He wore it in front of me, so I had to snatch it off.”

“He started crying to the refs. He was like ‘ref!’ He didn’t say nothing to me though.”

Crabtree felt as though he was being treated unfairly by the officials, who he said were giving him warnings all game and not only didn’t have the same reprimands for Talib but didn’t penalize Talib for his actions either.

“You see the dude, what he’s doing in front of me,” Crabtree said. “What you want me to do? I can’t react, they’re gonna kick me out, then I’m the bad guy. I made a business decision, for my team.”

In other words, Crabtree didn’t want to shoot himself in the foot. That’s literally Talib’s specialty.

If unsportsmanlike conduct means anything to the NFL — and we know it does — this should be one of those instances where Talib’s destruction of property should cost him a fair amount more in a fine than the worth of the necklace. ‘Should’ being the key word here.