Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?

I am reading the book *The First Seven Ecumenical Councils * by Leo Donald Davis. This is my first introduction to Trinitarian and Christological disputes within the Early Church. It appears to me: - that Nestorians believed that Christ had two natures, two wills, and two hypostasis; - that Chalcedonians believed that Christ had two natures and two wills, but in one hypostasis; - that Monophysites believed that Christ had one (or two, dependent on sub-sect) nature, one will, and one hypostatsis. A) Is my assessment accurate? (This isn't the crux of my question: B is.) B) Regardless of my assessment's veracity, is it fair to state that the Chalcedonian position is a moderate position in between the Nestorian position and the Monophysite position? Why or why not?