Not if the Moots leaks are correct.
According to those Moots leaks, 40% of the population in Rome in the Republican Era were "Northern Italian like". Not Parma Beaker like, but specifically Northern Italian like. Those people were from Roman burials, not Etruscan ones, at a time when it still made a difference.
So, no, all "Romans", at least not in the pre-Imperial Age, were all homogeneously Southern Italian/Sicilian like. That has to be accounted for...
I hate to agree with Eurogenes about anything, but facts are facts.
The fact that someone is claiming the Umbrians, Samnites, northern Picene are similar to the Etruscans is the confusing part.
Does that mean the "Republican Era" Romans and the Etruscans were not that dissimilar to one another? Were they two streams of minority admixed steppe people. Did they arrive at different times? Did the Etruscans, like the Basques, just carry a different non IE language, or did the Etruscans adopt another one in situ. Has anyone checked for traces of a substrate language in ancient Ligurian? It's always been difficult to analyze. Could that substrate be in any way similar to Etruscan? Is the substrate at all similar to certain things underlying, say, Iberian. Could certain R1b lines, but not others, have carried more "ancient" or "different" languages?
I know the "elite" from Aegean/Anatolia dominance scenario for the language shift in Etruscans is still alive and well, but it seems slightly odd that the addition of an "elite" group could still result in a people so "northern". I mean, all we have for Etruscans are "elite" burials, so far as I know, and so they would carry this "elite" admixture. Yet still so northern? It would have had to have been a handful. Or perhaps it was adopted from people with whom the Etruscans traded and whom they greatly respected? Is there any other example for something like that?
As Pax has pointed out so often, admixture from Greek admixed people from the south could easily result in Tuscans.