This isn't a crazy idea. That said it is rarely done for a reason. There is a high penalty to pay in terms of hull efficiency, but if you aren't too worried about speed under power it may be a price you are willing to pay. Naval architects use the term hull efficiency to combine two other terms, wake fraction and thrust deduction. Thrust deduction is the idea that when the propeller accelerates that water and this water runs along the hull of the boat faster than it otherwise would, it increases the friction on the hull which increases resistance. Wake fraction has to do with the relationship of speed of the water the prop is in to the free stream speed. A prop works by accelerating water backwards to move the boat forwards. The slower the water going into the prop is moving, the bigger the delta of speed in to speed out the prop will generate and the more efficient it will be. Moving the propeller forward negatively affects both of these concepts. The wake fraction is largest at the back of the vessel (the local water is moving slowest relative to the free stream) and at the extreme bow it is moving at the free stream, it varies along the hull but is generally best at the stern. Similarly, moving the propeller forward moves the propeller race (the water accelerated behind the propeller) forward. This race then impinges on much more of the boat than before, generating a lot more resistance. Thus if you move your engine to the forward half of the boat it will either cost you a good deal of speed or require a bit larger engine. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though, that depends on the cost/benefit analysis of your use case.
