God, this discussion about Ladd-Chiasson, both fighters I have successfully bet on and against many times, is a trainwreck from both sides.
-Chiasson is a better grappler than given credit for. In the Lansberg fight, she tried to grapple with her, got advantageous positions and won the first round, but gassed hard halfway through the second. She was taken down after being gassed, but continually got up. She's not going to grapple with Ladd, anyways.
-Ladd is a better striker than given credit for. She's steadily improved over her fights, and threw a solid left hook knocking out Kunitskaya on the feet. She improved her straight left (not a true jab) in that same fight, too.
-Chiasson's striking is no joke. She's no GDR, but she is one of the harder, better strikers at 135...for as long as her cardio lasts.
-It's an open question whether Ladd will be better, worse, or the same compared to her last outing against Kunitskaya. I personally have no idea. Tearing one's ACL and MCL is very serious, and could lead to worse movement, striking, and grappling, depending on the severity of the initial injury, how good the surgeon was, the recovery, etc. but it should also be noted that Ladd gets her takedowns from a clinch, not from a shot. (On the flipside, Chiasson is better at defending in the clinch than she is defending a shot). Of course, Ladd could also have improved her skills, especially considering she looked better than ever in her last fight, against Kunitskaya, and is still only 26 years old.
Being reductive and exaggerating is fine for general MMA talk, but it's the enemy of proper analysis and capping.