We should judge a Bond by his baddies.
Daniel Craig's Bond went up against the best, most elaborate villains.
The Bond franchise is one of the highest-grossing film series in history. To date, Skyfall has made the most money at the box office of any Bond film.
Unusually, not only did Skyfall gross the most, but it also sat well with fans and critics, an unusual achievement for a film. Sam Mendes, the director, is masterful and his shots have cinephiles purring. As the man at the heart of it all, and a performance worthy of Britain's favourite protagonist, Daniel Craig deserves a significant portion of the credit.
The film's plot makes no sense. For all of its great action scenes and great performances, the story is lacking and there are glaring holes in the plot. Why does M let Bond return to the field even after he fails the necessary psych and physical tests? Why does Silva not use his hi-tech cyber skills to get to M, but instead hatches a basic plan to shoot at her in the Houses of Parliament? Why does Bond feel the need to return to his childhood home in Scotland? Why does Bond take M to a remote mansion for safety? Why is he the only one protecting her? Why, instead of enlisting the army, Marines, or other MI6 agents, does he rely on an old groundskeeper for armed support? 
Enter the framing of the argument here ...
[P1] Daniel Craig starred in the best movie. [P2] Therefore he is the best Bond.
[P1] Skyfall was not the best Bond movie.
Enter more information about the argument here ...