Depending on what you mean by "imply", yes, the Talmudic passage does imply that God has a physical form/image.
The simple reading of the passage is that God has an image/form. If not for the fact that there is a philosophical/theological issue with a corporeal God we would not reinterpret the passage.
Rambam, the greatest champion of incorporeality, admits that there are verses which at face value seem to be describing God in a corporeal manner, and goes so far as to say that it is harder to reinterpret those verses towards incorporeality than to reinterpret the verses in Genesis towards an eternal (non-created) universe:
Guide for the Perplexed 2:25
WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain
passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not
more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal
being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable
interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we
did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have
had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to
are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we
accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms
in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal. For two
reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the
Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been
demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their
literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must
and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has
not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not
sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical
text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be
supported by an equally good argument. (Friedlander translation)
Moreover, Ra'avad explicitly states that many individuals greater than Rambam believed in (some form of) corporeality based on the verses and aggadot which misled them:
Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7
ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו
במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות
This Talmudic passage would be a prime example of one of the aggadot that could mislead someone into believing in corporeality.
This is all assuming that "imply" just meant "what is the simple meaning of the passage?", and therefore we could say that even though corporeality is incorrect it is still implied by the Talmud. However, R. Isaiah of Trani (The Younger) goes a step further and argues that some of the Talmudic Sages actually did believe in corporeality.
Riaz Kuntres Harayos Sanhedrin 90a
וכמה היו מחכמי התלמוד הקדושים שמהם תצא תורה לישראל שלא נתנו לבם
להתבונן בענין האלהות אלא הבינו המקראות כפשוטם ולפי תומם חשבו כי הקדוש
ברוך הוא בעל גוף ותמונה
In that sense, then, we can say that this Talmudic passage fully implies corporeality – it's not just a mistaken conclusion that can be derived from the passage but it might actually be what the Talmudic author meant.
Regardless, it doesn't mean that it is true. As Meiri wrote about something else, we do not determine our theology based on aggadot:
Meiri Shabbat 55a:
אין עיקרי האמונות תלויות בראיות של פשוטי מקראות ואגדות וכבר ידעת שאין