There are two really big issues with tail mounted powerplants with propellers; weight distribution and Foreign Object Damage.
Tail mounted engines move the empty C of G aft. This forces you to put the disposable load with a forward bias to compensate, hence the long forward fuselage necessary to put the loaded C of G in the required range. Of course, when passengers get off, the C of G moves aft, and to keep the tail from tipping back while the plane is unloaded, you have to move the gear farther aft than optimal for takeoff. The elevator surface has to be larger than it might normally be in order to lever the nose up on take off with the fulcrum of the tire contact point farther aft than it really needs to be. With so much fuselage forward of the loaded C of G, you might have to use larger stabilizing surfaces to have adequate tail volume for good yaw and pitch stability.
Jets with tail mounted engines live with these problems to gain the huge advantage they provide, the ability to have the fuselage close to the ground to make it easy to get in sitting on a ramp, an important feature for corporate airplanes. For an airliner that uses jet bridges for boarding, this feature isn't important.
Then there is the brutal environment for the poor propellers. Every bit of rain, slush, stones, rubber fragments, and whatever other garbage is on the runway will be going through the propellers, and they will get dinged up and eroded pretty fast (anyone that's owned a seaplane understands the mess that large volumes of water makes of propeller blades).
For an airplane with propellers, back at the tail is about the worst place you can put them if propeller service life is important.