Answer

There is definitely value in it. Breadth helps with understanding depth. The question is also how one studies. I have more than once argued to students that the difference between in-depth study and broad coverage is not essential. It is like the difference between an aggressive patrol and a regular patrol in the army. A regular patrol goes along the route and checks that everything is fine. If everything looks fine, it moves on. An aggressive patrol fires into every bush in order to actively bring problems to the surface. Broad-coverage study is not necessarily more superficial. It deals with problems that arise, but it does not forcibly uncover problems that are not visible at first glance. In broad study, one usually opens fewer books, but that is not an essential criterion. You can study Talmud with Rashi in-depth, and Talmud with all the commentators as broad coverage. By the way, in my opinion both have some value; it all depends on the person.