Well, I didn't mean to denigrate Craig. My point is that the character of James Bond isn't built for the kind of extreme displays that characterize "great acting" in the Oscar-seeking tradition. As a general rule, no matter who's playing him, Bond doesn't burst into gales of laughter, collapse in racking sobs, deliver impassioned soliloquies about his core beliefs, or greatest fears, or biggest regrets, or childhood trauma, etc etc etc. He isn't paralyzed by self-doubt, he doesn't experience much in the way of "catharsis" from a film's beginning to its end (He's pretty much the same unstoppable killing machine in the first scene of CR that he is in the last). There's only so far you can go with Bond before you break him as a macho role model (or if you prefer, a prototypical British "stiff upper lip" type). He needs to be rock-solid at all times, even if we suspect that fissures on the inside may at some point cleave that rock beyond repair.
And that's the character I'm talking about, not the actor. Connery's Bond isn't notably emotional, Moore is often criticized for being too unflappable even by Bond standards. Lazenby has a great moment when he's strangling the enemy skiier and seems genuinely terrified of discovery, but it's fleeting. Dalton gets angrier than the others, but "anger" isn't a "risky" emotion for a macho hero.
If you have a character who can't go very far or very deep with emotion, then you have a couple of choices: either present him with a series of challenges with high physical stakes but no emotional stakes (like most of the "Classic" Bond entries) or try to milk a modicum of drama out of increasingly extreme psychological stressors. Will this be the thing that breaks the unbreakable hero? I think they've gone about as far with the latter as they can, regardless of who plays him. But given that Craig's forte is (IMO) maintaining an outer cool while falling apart on the inside, the temptation is to keep giving him more and more of that.