One thing I've noticed is that as this list has gone on, it's appearing that all of the Fathers are, more or less "Eastern" like - for the reason that they all grounded themselves in the same Truth. I really don't like the whole "eastern-western" distinction in this regard to begin with; it's too easy to fall into a chauvenistic attitude (usually regarding the "Western" Fathers).
Some people say that the "Western Fathers" had a different emphasis, but I take issue with that, since I don't see this strongly reflected. I think what is fair to say is that some Western Fathers (like Augustine and Jerome) departed in key ways from the patristic consensus, and where they erred, we don't follow them, but that their errors are not blameworthy in the way that heresy is. The same would be said of an "Eastern Father" like St.Gregory of Nyssa (who held "Origenesque" views regarding the salvation of the world), or the portion of those pre-Nicean Fathers who held quasi-"millenealist" eschatological views.
I think what happens is people think "St.Augustine", and impute the bad parts of his speculative teachings upon all of the Western Fathers, creating the impression that this is something true of all of them. I think that situation exists, primarily because of the way later western Christians built their entire theology upon St.Augustine's less than correct speculations (particularly regarding the economy of grace and predestination). However, I don't think it's appropriate for Orthodox Christians to anachronistically impute the situation of later western Christendom upon the earlier Orthodox Fathers of the West.
For example, when I read St.Ambrose, or Pope St.Gregory the Great, I don't get the latter Anslemian teaching on the Cross's significance, but that taught by the "Eastern" Fathers, and maintained today by the Orthodox Church. The same goes for every other topic of importance.