Kicking out the crab is just applying rudder, yes: true of any landing in which one does not wish to land in a bank. The timing is such, however, that it's done close to the runway and just prior to touchdown, so that one doesn't have to lower the wing much, if at all. In some larger considerable-mass airplanes, it can still be done, but it does take more to move the airplane and there is generally a lot more rudder. Boeing, for example, long recommended landing the 747 in a crab, as opposed to making large changes close to the runway. It can still be done, but the potential is increased to end up with a wingtip strike or pod strike, and if the aircraft is stable and on the centerline, it may be preferable to land in a crab.
The 747 has a lot more gear and stouter gear than the taller, spindly gear on the 757 or 767, which shouldn't be landed in a crab, if possible. In general, in most airplanes, it's best to get the long axis pointed in the same direction of travel as the airplane. The 767 may be landed in a crab, per Boeing, but not on a dry runway or in strong crosswinds. Both the dry runway, and the strong crosswind, sideload the gear; the dry runway because of greater friction, and the greater crosswind because of a greater crab angle.
I recently watched a C-17 make an approach using what I thought was a ridiculously large bank angle, all the way down final. Whether it was a demonstration during a training operation or whether it was operational and that's how that pilot landed, I don't know, but it drew comments.
Treat everything like it's got a tailwheel when you land, and you won't have problems. Just don't do a 3-point tailwheel landing in a transport category turobjet airplane. No gold foil star for that.