I take the opposite view. I think as beginners it's better for us to learn very shallow openings just from experience in our matches while we develop board vision, blunder checking and tactics. I can't see how it can make sense to learn a deep line which the elite players play which we'll never actually experience. Even if it did happen, whatever marginal advantage we'd gain from playing the strong known line, would be overwhelmed by mistakes and blunders in the mid-game.
Analysing matches to find blunders, mistakes, misses and the first inaccuracy is invaluable. That way you can advance your understanding of openings breadth-first rather than depth-first.
because so many games are lost when we get ourselves into bad positions out of the opening, making the middle game difficult, resulting in either an easy endgame for the opponent or an early resignation when blundering under pressure from the bad positioning of pieces, that's the reason imo why so many games are won and lost at beginner to intermediate level, because we don't study how to play against openings especially common openings which are opponents are very comfortable and familiar with.
You always here the top level players say openings don't matter, they are simple insular thinking, thinking from their lofty heights not understanding how important openings are to the vast majority of players who do not have their insight, skillset and experience to deal with all of them.