Just to prove how blatantly wrong Joe Buck is, I will write this entire post like a bad 7th grade essay:
Consistency, what is it? Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines it, in definition 2a, as "marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction". One might say, therefore that to be inconsistent is to change frequently, for instance be different from one week to the next.
However, I will show that morons and overpaid analysts think consistent just means good. To show this, I will cite Joe Buck during the Giants-Buccaneers game (on Eli Manning): "He wasn't inconsistent last week against the Patriots!! OMGLOL!" (OMGLOL being the best possible transcription of Joe Buck's excitement at himself). You can't of course, be "consistent" in a sample size of one. You can be "good" but you can't be marked by regularity or steady continuity in a sample size of one!
In conclusion, Joe Buck is a pretty crappy analyst. But don't think Joe Buck is a bad man. There are many bad analysts that think consistency means good. Of course, these people forget that if the baseline is #35 this year in DVOA and #25 in QB Rating (as Manning is) then inconsistent is good. The Giants should pray before each game that Manning be inconsistent with the way he played this season. Therefore, this is proof that "consistency" says nothing about quality, just about repetition. Luckily for the Giants, Eli Manning is playing pretty inconsistently good today.