I've looked at dozens and dozens of statues from the Classical period, and frescoes as well. They do NOT show Keltic people. Where they weren't heavily Med, they were some blend of Alpine and Dinaric. Those skulls are indeed broad above the forehead, but the back is often Dinaric, and the faces are long and narrow, sometimes triangular. The noses are also Dinaric. The closest group to them other than Italians is probably people from the Balkans, which would make sense.
That doesn't mean that we don't have "Keltic" looking people in Italy, because we do, and more Germanic looking ones as well, and Greek, Aegean looking ones as well, but those aren't "ancient Roman" looks.
What I and other Italians object to is the constant t-rolling which flies in the face of the evidence which we do have. It's as bad as the whole Mycenaeans were blonde Nordics nonsense, which has now been belied by ancient dna.
We have to wait and see what more ancient dna from Italy shows, but so far the Remedello people who were supposed to be fair steppe people turned out to be dark haired and eyed mostly EEF people, and the "Italians" in the Langobard cemetery are very "southern" indeed. Now, I expect them to be more varied in other parts of the North, but I think the results from the Balkans, and from the Langobard cemetery in Hungary show that the EEF genotype and phenotype was still very widespread even after the steppe migrations, migrations of people who were by no means all blonde and blue-eyed themselves. People just choose to ignore all the papers that have come out because it conflicts with their prior expectations and their world view.
I don't know what the heck Coon was looking at, but he was just plain wrong.