Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Upon what are you basing both of those assertions? I was unaware that Eutyches had any followers, and what I've read about him says that he was a very elderly and confused man.
FYI, an article about Eutyches:http://www.orthodoxmedway.org/eutyches.pdf
Per your own source "he was the respected and powerful archimandrite of a monastery outside the city walls. He was the godfather of the eunuch Chrysaphius, one of the most influential ministers in the court of the emperor Theodosius II." And even before his case became a major controversy, he was of enough prominence within the Church that he could write to the bishop of Rome expecting and receiving a reply.
It seems true he was not a particularly skilled theologian and therefore his followers may not have been clear on what he actually believed/taught (and the same may be true for the OO Fathers who initially tried to defend him), and so were not disciples of 'Eutychianism' per se. But the historical record is clear that he was a figure of influence within Constantinople with a body of followers quite willing to move in his defense.
Of course all of that is true and fact of history, however what is an inference is if Eutyches' followers at his monastery were heretics, and even if some of the monks there were, was this a matter of them being taught this by Eutyches, or was Eutyches at least complacent to their heresy, or even were they acting independent of Eutyches. Individual priests do not always agree 100% with everything their superiors teach, and leaders are only held accountable for what they do to intervene, not necessarily what others did. So if there were heretics in Eutyches monastery, his only crime I would say is not to openly suppress their heresies. Did he teach variously confusing interpretations of the logistics behind Miaphysite Christology of Saint Anathasius and Saint Cyril? Yes, of course, he was no wax-poetic theologian. It is clear he was a politician more so than a sophist. He had powerful connections, great influence, and was widely revered. If anything, this might suggest some motivation as to why some folks might have contrived against him. For example, no disrespect to Pope Leo the Great, but it also clear from history that he was a very power-hungry bishop, and that he introduced this push towards Latin superiority which was entirely foreign to the first three hundred years of Christian history, and that in Constantinople they almost acquiesced towards the Latins to put out the spot fires between the split from West to East. The Byzantine Empire was most definitely the powerhouse, but they were probably as nostalgic about Rome as the earlier Romans were about "Great Greece" and so this idealism combined with political realities and influenced a temporary shift towards Rome's own charisma. Also, this was just after Attila the Hun, if anything, perhaps those in Constantinople were just being politically "polite" and figured on the inevitable fall of Rome which sort of never happened. I support the validity of the Roman Catholic jurisdiction, but history is history and people are people and the Church an institution very much inserted into the realities of history and people.
However, I would say that I am not familiar with any historical evidence to suggest that Eutyches led a heretical monastery, and if anything, the contemporary politics of the time complicate the entire situation. We can't always trust condemnations or accusations against Eutyches because there may have been an agenda behind such. What we do know is that before Synods and Councils and in private communications to prestigious figures, Eutyches recanted of any heretical doctrines, and embraced the statements of Nicea and Ephesus which is why Saint Dioscoros reinstated him. Now, folks may disagree with Saint Dioscoros' own Christology, but we in the Ethiopian Orthodox at the least honor the father as a saint, and further, we accept that Eutyches was accepted by the so-called "Robber Council" and so we do not reject Eutyches individually, rather we reject any of the monophysite (as opposed to the true miaphysite doctrine) interpretations which have subsequently been ascribed to him. Ethiopian Archbishop Abba Melketsedek explains specifically that the Ethiopian Church, "rejects the teachings attributed
to Eutyches" implying those doctrines condemned by the EO perhaps wrongfully called Eutychianism. When Saint Dioscoros exonerated Eutyches, we in the Ethiopian Orthodox, as a jurisdiction historically under Alexandria, are duty bound to respect such.
I like the way Joseph Campbell explains it.
"..in the present development of controversy this school [of Alexandria] was represented principally by two powerful bishops, Cyril and Dioscurus, of whom the first would be canonized and the second anathematized for holding essentially the same view."
Occidental Mythology Joseph Campbell, p408
By the way, Campbell was a practicing Catholic so his kind interpretation of Saint Dioscoros may not be as biased as my own