You got it. A Protestant pastor delivering a sermon should simply step up to the pulpit, read some scripture, and then sit down. That's "Bible alone."
Sola Sriptura, it seems to me, implies that the teachings of our Lorid Jesus Christ which were not written down are somehow "less divine" or "uninspired." It would follow that only that which Jesus spoke as inspired was worth recording. I would venture to say that everything Jesus said and taught was equally divine and inspired.
Sola Scriptura cannot explain how did Fathers of the Church come to realize intricate Trinitarian doctrine, or the Dual Nature of our Lord Jesus Chirst, since neither was the Bible around when this happened, nor is it in any way conveyed in the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is wrong because the very pillars of our faith, Trinity and Dual Nature of the Christ are not in the Bible and, if Sola Scriptura were the norm, such pillars would, by implication by profane and not inspired.
Sola Scriptura is in error because without the Holy Tradition there would be no Bible, because the Bible is a product of the Christian theology that came from the Holy Tradition, which allowed the Fathers of the Church to distinguish inspired from profane, truth from heresy, orthodoxy from heterodoxy, etc., in other words: the normas that made selection the of NT documents possible and thus created the Chirstian Bible itself.
Sola Scriptura denies, it seems to me, that which was perfectly acceptable to the Holy Fathers and the Church for 1,500 years. Sola Scriptura, seems to me, confuses Holy Tradition with the human tradition.